QUALITATIVE STUDY OF PATHWAYS TO INVOLVEMENT AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AVOIDANCE STRATEGIES IN METHAMPHETAMINE MARKETS By Julie Yingling A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Criminal Justice – Doctor of Philosophy 2013 ABSTRACT QUALITATIVE STUDY OF PATHWAYS TO INVOLVEMENT AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AVOIDANCE STRATEGIES IN METHAMPHETAMINE MARKETS By Julie Yingling Methamphetamine has become the most widely used illegal substance in the United States. Legislation is continually changed to combat the sale of ingredients used to produce methamphetamine. Although there has been research on the destruction caused by laboratories and health issues caused by use, little research exists about how markets operate. The purpose of this dissertation was to advance the understanding of methamphetamine markets, how they are structured, levels of gender equality in the markets, and ways in which members avoid detection by law enforcement. Based on data from in-depth interviews with twenty-five men and twenty-seven women involved in methamphetamine markets, as well as six law enforcement officers with methamphetamine market work experience, this study captured the experiences of individuals holding a variety of positions within a market. The data reveal small, loosely structured markets that consist of family and/or friends. Roughly half of the markets described are hierarchical in nature. As far as gender differences of experiences within the market, men and women both have a great deal of agency and mobility within the sampled methamphetamine markets. Strategies to avoid law enforcement center around tasks such as obtaining ingredients and components, cooking, and selling. Men and women use very similar strategies within these categories. These findings are unique in that they reveal a considerable amount of gender equality and agency within methamphetamine drug markets. Copyright by JULIE YINGLING 2013 ACKNOWLEGEMENTS I want to first thank my mentor and chair, Dr. Merry Morash. I appreciate her constant guidance and feedback. I also appreciate the insight of my other committee members, Drs. Ed McGarrell, Steve Chermak, and Soma Chadhuri, for their valuable contributions to my research. I also want to thank the numerous men and women who participated in my study. I appreciate their trust as they candidly shared intimate parts of their lives. Their honesty and desire to help others overcome addiction is inspiring. This study would not have been possible without their candor. Finally, neither this dissertation nor my academic career would have been possible without the encouragement of my family. My parents never faltered in their support as they took in my dog while I traveled the state searching for methamphetamine users. And to my sisterthank you for your enthusiasm and sharing my love of data. I always want to show my appreciation to my friends who were a constant source of inspiration and support. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF FIGURES ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Statement of the problem Anti-methamphetamine legislation Limited medical use Pharmacy control Strategies to circumvent law enforcement detection Recruiting family and friends Smurfing Mobility Methamphetamine markets and gender Purpose of the study Theoretical significance of the study 1 1 5 5 5 6 7 7 8 8 9 11 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW Feminist theory Drug market research using feminist theory Women’s involvement in other drug markets Law enforcement avoidance strategies Pathways theory Drug market research using pathways theory Conclusion 13 13 14 14 17 19 20 21 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY Research design Sampling Triangulation Sample characteristics Data collection instrument and procedure Analysis 23 23 23 27 28 29 31 CHAPTER 4: MARKET ROLES AND STRUCTURE Roles Cooks Helpers Dealers Boxers Users Overlapping roles 33 33 34 36 37 38 39 40 v Market structure Size Family vs. friend based networks Hierarchy Connected markets Acquiring ingredients Selling Cooks trade Cooks sell Dealers sell Conclusion 42 42 46 49 51 54 61 61 63 65 67 CHAPTER 5: GENDERED EXPERIENCES Pathways to methamphetamine use Introduction through men Introduction through women Pathways to methamphetamine market involvement Involvement before use Involvement after use Length of time between first use and market involvement Advancing in the market Males doing gender Take advantage of being a man Act tough Females doing gender Take advantage of being a woman Act feminine Act tough Agency Control Rebel Bargain Sex trade Conclusion 70 70 70 73 74 75 77 78 83 88 88 89 92 92 94 95 97 97 100 102 105 170 CHAPTER 6: AVOIDING ARREST Avoid arrest Getting ingredients Cooking Selling Car Storing components Police Using Intersections Female law enforcement avoidance strategies 110 110 100 113 119 122 124 126 127 128 128 vi Play dumb Crotch dope Cry Flirt Lie Others Male law enforcement avoidance strategies Run Drive Arrest No strategies Standard strategies Learn strategies from arrest Snitch Unusual circumstances Explosion Traffic stop Conclusion 129 130 130 131 131 132 133 133 134 134 135 135 136 137 137 138 139 139 CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION Summary of findings Limitations Policy implications Future research Conclusion 142 142 146 148 150 152 APPENDICES Appendix A: Tables and Figures Appendix B: Consent Forms and Interview Instruments 156 156 171 REFERENCES 194 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Characteristics of Meth Market Involved Population 156 Table 2: Participant’s Primary Role by Gender 158 Table 3: Comprehensive List of Male Participants and Market Information 159 Table 4: Comprehensive List of Female Participants and Market Information 160 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Number of methamphetamine lab incidents in Michigan 161 Figure 2: Snowball Sampling Chart 162 Figure 3: Overlapping Roles of Participants 163 Figure 4: Market Structure of Participant’s Primary Market 164 Figure 5: Relationship to Individual Who First Introduced Participant to Methamphetamine 165 Figure 6: Men Doing Gender 166 Figure 7: Women Doing Gender 167 Figure 8: Agency 168 Figure 9: Arrest Avoidance Strategy Categories 169 Figure 10: Context of Participants’ Arrest 170 ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Statement of the problem Methamphetamine has become the “most widely abused and most frequently clandestinely produced synthetic drug in the United States” (Deutch, 2011, p. 1). The widespread availability is particularly recognized by local and rural law enforcement authorities as they routinely see the increase in use by individuals in their communities, crimes related to methamphetamine use (burglary and robbery), as well as methamphetamine related arrests (Hansell, 2006; Kyle &Hansell, 2005). Law enforcement agencies, health care professionals, and the public have become increasingly concerned about the substance because of its potency and addictiveness and the ease of manufacturing it (Kyle &Hansell, 2005; Rawson, Anglin, & Ling, 2002). Indicative of its growing use and lethality, methamphetamine related emergency department visits rose 50 percent between 1995 and 2002 (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2006a). Similarly, a survey of US law enforcement agencies revealed a nearly 90 percent increase in methamphetamine arrests in the 5 years prior to the survey (Kyle &Hansell, 2005). Over half of the agencies surveyed indicate that methamphetamine arrests constitute up to 20 percent of their arrests during that same 5 year period (Kyle &Hansell, 2005). Methamphetamine is a stimulant that can be smoked, inhaled, injected, or orally ingested (Anglin, Burke, Perrochet, Stamper, & Dawud-Noursi, 2000; National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2006b; Winslow, Voorhees, & Pehl, 2007). It causes a quick and pleasant rush followed by euphoria due to the release of high levels of dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2006b; Winslow et al., 2007). Methamphetamine has socially desirable side effects that can treat narcolepsy, attention deficit disorders and obesity (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2006b; United States Drug Enforcement Administration, 2006). Other side effects 1 from using the substance include increase in wakefulness, physical activity, respiration and attention; decreased appetite and fatigue; increased blood pressure; high body temperature; stroke; shaking; insomnia; anxiety; paranoia; hallucinogens; and tremors (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2006b; United States Drug Enforcement Administration, 2006; Winslow et al., 2007). Long term negative effects include addiction, psychosis, changes in brain functioning, serious dental decay, aggressive and/or violent behavior, as well as death (Cho, 1990; Darke, Kaye, McKetin, & Duflou, 2008; National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2006c; Rawson, Gonzales, &Brethen, 2002). Methamphetamine users are similar to other drug users in that they tend to be white, single, have a high school diploma or GED, be unemployed, live in private sector housing, and work in blue collar occupations (Herz, 2000; Kyle & Hansell, 2005; Murray, 1998; National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2006a; Rodriquez, Katz, Webb, & Schaefer, 2005; Shears & Furman, 2005). Males and females self-report similar levels of use (Department of Health and Human Services, 2006; Drug and Alcohol Services Information System, 2006; Kyle & Hansell, 2005; National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2005; Rodriquez et al., 2005). People between the ages of 18 and 35 are affected by methamphetamine use more than any other age group (Rodriquez et al., 2005). Users are disproportionately white (Department of Health and Human Services, 2006; Drug and Alcohol Services Information System, 2006; Herz, 2000; Kyle & Hansell, 2005; Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 1995; National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2005; Rodriquez et al., 2005), and use seems to be growing most rapidly in the high school/college age groups and white collar workers (Kyle & Hansell, 2005; Rodriquez et al., 2005). 2 In the US, the prevalence of methamphetamine-induced seizures has rapidly increased in the past 25 years, a growth unmatched by seizures resulting from use of cocaine, marijuana, heroin, or hallucinogens (US Drug Enforcement Administration, 2012). The amount of methamphetamine seized by the DEA increased tenfold between 1986 and 2011 (US Drug Enforcement Administration, 2012). A vast majority of seizures occur in the Midwest and southern states (Gavett, 2011; US Drug Enforcement Administration, 2008; US Drug Enforcement Agency, 2012). These figures do not accurately reflect the true nature of methamphetamine labs, however, as their detection is dependent on state resources allocated for methamphetamine lab search and seizures. Some states indicating a slight decrease in busts (Tennessee, Arkansas, and Michigan) are simply experiencing cutbacks in federal funds allocated to investigations and busts; in contrast, states reporting an increase in busts (Missouri, Illinois, and Kentucky) have independent cleanup programs and thus have more resources to seek out laboratories (Gavett, 2011). Despite a decrease in resources, in 2011 Michigan was still in the top 15% of states with the highest number of lab seizures (US Drug Enforcement Agency, 2012). Between 2007 and 2011, the DEA reported a 302 percent increase in methamphetamine lab incidents (including detection of labs and dumpsites, and chemical and glassware seizures) in the state of Michigan, as illustrated in Figure 1 (US Drug Enforcement Agency, 2012). For a state like Michigan, with decreased funding available for lab identification and seizure and a high rate of methamphetamine manufacturing, law enforcement efforts need to be as current as possible to intervene in the formation and continuation of labs. Manufacturing methamphetamine is extremely dangerous. The highly corrosive chemicals create a very high risk of explosions, fires and burns (Scott & Dedel, 2006; Swetlow, 2003). Inhalation or ingestion of these chemicals can result in serious long term health 3 problems, such as organ damage, cancer, and death (Farst et al., 2007; Grant, 2007; Hohman, Oliver, & Wright, 2004; Lineberry & Bostwick, 2006; Swetlow, 2003). Further, the cooking process produces a large amount of toxic waste (Deutch, 2011; Scott &Dedel, 2006; Swetlow, 2003). Producing each pound of manufactured methamphetamine creates about six pounds of waste that affects people living in or around the lab site (Deutch, 2011). Proper clean up and disposal of one methamphetamine lab costs the DEA upwards of $25,000 (Deutch, 2011), indicating the seriousness and harmfulness of the residual chemicals and waste. The dangers of producing methamphetamine extend to the children who reside in or are exposed to homes where methamphetamine is manufactured. For roughly 20 percent of methamphetamine laboratory seizures, law enforcement personnel report the presence of children (Hunt, Kuck, & Truitt, 2006; Swetlow, 2003). Methamphetamine laboratories can harm children through the chemicals, materials, and the conditions of the lab as well as by the physical and/or physical abuse and neglect by the manufacturers, users, or others associated with or visiting the lab (Asanbe, Hall, & Bolden, 2008; Brown & Hohman, 2006; Farst et al., 2007; Haight, Black, & Sheridan, 2010; Haight, Marshall, Hans, Black, & Sheridan, 2010; Haight, Ostler, Black, Sheridan, & Kingery, 2007; Kyle &Hansell, 2005; Martyny, Van Dyke, McCammon, Erb, & Arbuckle, 2005; Pennar, Shapiro, & Krysik, 2012; Swetlow, 2003). Chemicals used during the manufacturing process produce toxic fumes, vapors, and spills (Swetlow, 2003). Children (as well as neighbors or unsuspecting roommates) can consume or inhale these substances resulting in headaches, dizziness, and fatigue, or, in the case of chronic exposure, chemical burns, organ damage, respiratory problems, central nervous system damage, cancer, or brain, liver and kidney damage (Farst et al., 2007; Hohman et al., 2004; Swetlow, 2003). Children exposed to methamphetamine manufacture are at a significantly increased risk 4 of developing aggressive behaviors (Asanbe et al., 2008; Haight, Marshall, et al., 2010). Fire or explosions lead to the identification of roughly 15 percent of methamphetamine labs, placing any children present at these sites at risk of being burned, harmed, or killed (Farst et al., 2007; Grant, 2007; Swetlow, 2003). Further, residences in which methamphetamine is produced are often characterized by hazardous conditions, such as explosives and sharp booby traps (Swetlow, 2003; Vogt, 2001). Residential labs can also be substandard in condition, ventilation, amenities, cleanliness, or infestations, creating an unsafe and unhealthy environment for all residents, including children (Brown & Hohman, 2006; Swetlow, 2003). Methamphetamine exposure to pregnant women causes significant damage to the fetus. Research indicates that these babies suffer from premature birth, growth retardation, developmental disorders, and long term cognitive deficits (Anglin et al., 2000; Rawson, Gonzales, et al., 2002) Anti-methamphetamine legislation Limited medical use The 1974 Drug Control Act significantly reduced the medical use of amphetamines as well as decreasing rates of amphetamine abuse (Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2007; UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, 2006; United States Drug Enforcement Administration, 2006). However, the low costs and ease of making methamphetamine led to a surge in the growth of small, independent manufacturing labs. The ingredients are legally obtainable and labs are so small they can fit anywhere, for example in cars and restrooms (Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2007). Pharmacy control 5 As a reaction to the increase in these small methamphetamine labs, starting in the early 1990s the federal government began placing restrictions on medications containing the chemicals needed to manufacture methamphetamine. Restrictions limited the quantity of medications purchasable at one time and caused many of these substances to be moved behind pharmacy counters so that buyers had to show identification and sign a log book with each purchase (Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2007; UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, 2006). These policy changes have lessened but not eliminated small, independent labs but, consequently, have increased the reliance on Mexican drug markets and trafficking into the United States (UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, 2006; United States Drug Enforcement Administration, 2006). While this study will not examine the influence of Mexican drug markets, it is important to understand how US based labs and markets are changing. The number of local methamphetamine seizures fluctuates whenever new antimethamphetamine legislation is introduced. Four separate commodity control statutes were implemented between 1988 and 1999. For a year or two following the enactment of an antimethamphetamine statute, seizures of dosage units increased by anywhere between 60-600 percent because law enforcement agencies were able to translate these new commodity control statutes into more effective investigative practices (Haddock, 2005). Within a year or two of the initial spike in seizures, the numbers decreased as methamphetamine manufactures were able to adapt to the new laws and update their procedures to avoid law enforcement intervention (Haddock, 2005). Strategies to circumvent law enforcement detection Trends in methamphetamine seizures and the research literature indicate that methamphetamine manufacturers use strategies to circumvent legislation. Known strategies to 6 avoid law enforcement detection are: recruiting friends and family as dealers; buying ingredients in small, legal amounts; and adapting the production process to be increasingly quick and mobile. Recruiting friends and family Social networks are very important within methamphetamine markets (McKetin, McLaren, & Kelly, 2005). Operating inside them is the best way to avoid arrest. Research on methamphetamine use reveals that a majority of users are introduced to the drug through friends, family, or partners(Brecht, O’Brien, von Mayrhauser, & Anglin, 2004; Jenkot, 2011). Most dealers report transitioning into the dealer role shortly after their methamphetamine use became regular with, once again, help from these same family members, friends, or partners (McKetin et al., 2005). Similarly, McKetin et al. (2005) found that over 90 percent of methamphetamine users describe their main dealer as a close friend or acquaintance. By recruiting users and dealers known to those already in the market, trust among those involved is maintained and the operation avoids outside detection. Smurfing One tactic that has been adopted to circumvent pseudoephedrine restrictions is known as ‘smurfing’- individuals go from store to store buying small, legal amounts of medicines that contain pseudoephedrine (Bovett, 2006; Department of Justice, 2009; Deutch, 2011; Nemes, 2010; Rigdon, 2012; VanderWaal et al., 2008). Individuals can do this alone or in groups. Group smurfing is the practice of multiple smurfers each collecting a small amount of pseudoephedrine from pharmacies (Deutch, 2011). Due to differences in state’s pseudoephedrine legislation, interstate smurfing has become popular. Interstate smurfing refers to the practice of traveling to other states to take advantage of less stringent pseudoephedrine 7 laws and purchase higher quantities than allowable in the home state (Bovett, 2006; VanderWaal et al., 2008). After purchasing the pseudoephedrine, smurfers either trade the medicine for a share in its resulting batch (Bovett, 2006) or sell it to cooks for a large profit (Rigdon, 2012). Mobility Small operations of methamphetamine manufacturing are taking over the work of large scale operations (Dighton, 2004; Haddock, 2005; Privett, 2005; Scott &Dedel, 2006; Vogt, 2001). There are several advantages of the small scale production operation: the cost is very low as very few materials are needed (Scott &Dedel, 2006); faster, simpler methods of cooking take only a few hours, leaving little time for others to report them and law enforcement to show up (Scott &Dedel, 2006); and they are highly mobile (Dighton, 2004; Haddock, 2005; Scott &Dedel, 2006; Vogt, 2001). Because the labs are so mobile, manufacturers can pack up and abandon a location after using it just once to avoid the threat of being reported or detected (Haddock, 2005; Privett, 2005). Research indicates that mobile labs can be set up in any space: private residences, rental homes, apartments, abandoned buildings, hotel and motel rooms, commercial establishments, garages, campgrounds, vehicles, moving vans, storage facilities, horse trailers, barns, houseboats, restrooms, and abandoned dumps (Vogt 2001: 255; Scott and Dedel 2006: 9; Levine 2004-2005: 1609; Swetlow 2003:2). Methamphetamine markets and gender A great deal of research exists on women in crack markets (Evans, Forsyth, and Gauthier 2002; Inciardi 1989; Maher 1997; Maher and Daly 1996). In these markets, women generally gain access through boyfriends and spouses while men gain access through friends (Evans et al. 2002; Inciardi 1989; Maher 1997; Maher and Daly 1996). Women are limited to lower level positions and are exploited in these roles; they can be denied permission to sell the substance, 8 and are often forced into peripheral roles, such as selling paraphernalia and acting as a go between for out of town buyers and local sellers (Evans et al. 2002; Inciardi 1989; Maher 1997; Maher and Daly 1996). Methamphetamine markets follow this same recruitment strategy: women are introduced to methamphetamine markets through spouses or boyfriends while men enter through friends (Brecht et al., 2004). In some regards, however, methamphetamine markets are unique. Methamphetamine markets include the individuals who carry out the different tasks needed to manufacture the substance. For this study, these tasks include acquiring the ingredients, mixing them together to produce methamphetamine, as well selling the substance. In contrast to crack and heroin markets, methamphetamine markets tend to be closed and indoors rather than outside and open (Rodriquez et al., 2005). Compared to crack and heroin users, female methamphetamine users are less likely to report trading sex for drugs and are more likely to receive methamphetamine as a gift (Rodriquez & Griffin, 2005). Further, current research on women’s roles in methamphetamine markets have found that, compared to other drug markets, women are empowered, have control over their role within the market, and are disproportionately involved in higher level roles such as cooking and controlling the enterprise (Brecht et al., 2004; Jenkot, 2011; Morgan & Joe, 1996). Female dealers report feeling in control of their life and role within the market, a characteristic not shared by female dealers in other drug markets (Jacobs & Miller, 1998a; Jenkot, 2011; Maher, 1997; Morgan & Joe, 1996). Purpose of the study The purpose of this qualitative study is to address three aspects of methamphetamine markets: their structure, participant’s experiences, and ways in which participants avoid law enforcement. This study will specifically explore the different roles of market participants, the 9 various ways methamphetamine markets are structured, how ingredients are acquired, and how methamphetamine is sold. This study also examines the experiences of men and women within markets, for example the avenues through which men and women are introduced to methamphetamine and markets, whether men and women engage in stereotypically gendered behavior while working in the markets, and the level of control they have over their involvement. Lastly, this study investigates how participants avoid arrest, gendered approaches to avoiding law enforcement, and, if participants were arrested for methamphetamine related charges, whether or not they were using their regular arrest avoidance strategies. Questions about the structure of methamphetamine markets: 1. What are the different roles of methamphetamine market members? 2. How are methamphetamine markets structured? How large are markets? How are members related? Are they hierarchically structured? Is there overlap among markets? 3. How are ingredients and components acquired? How do members get around the Sudafed limits at pharmacies? 4. How is methamphetamine sold? Questions about the experiences of men and women within the market: 5. How are men and women introduced to methamphetamine? 6. How are men and women introduced to methamphetamine markets? 7. What position do men and women hold when entering a market? 8. How long after first using methamphetamine do individuals join markets? 9. How do men and women advance their position in the market? 10. How do men and women use their gender in markets? Do men act tough? Do women act tough or act more feminine? 10 11. How much control do men and women have over their roles and involvement in methamphetamine markets? Questions about how men and women avoid arrest: 12. How do market participants avoid arrest while carrying out their roles? 13. How do men and women use gendered approaches to avoiding law enforcement? 14. What lead to participants getting arrested? Were they always using their law enforcement avoidance strategies? Theoretical significance of the study According to the pathways theoretical perspective, females take different pathways into illegal behavior than males (Leve & Chamberlain, 2004). Baskin, Sommers, and Fagan (1992) found that women’s increased roles as inner-city drug dealers resulted from the dwindling numbers of males available to carry on this work due to their death, due to violence, or their incarceration. This study will examine whether these findings also apply to the ways and contexts through which men and women become involved in the increasingly rural methamphetamine markets, or if unique dynamics exist. Feminist theory assumes that life experiences differ for men and women (Belknap, 2006; Messerschmidt, 1993). Feminist theory provides a framework for this study, as one purpose is to understand different detection avoidance strategies used by men and women who participate in methamphetamine markets. Feminist theory also assumes that men and women have agency, an ability to act in a self-directed way, albeit within constraints (Belknap 2006; Morash 2006). How study participants make choices also will be studied. This study will contribute to feminist 11 theory by examining the different strategies men and women use to avoid law enforcement detection, as well as any constraints women experience in this process. 12 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW Feminist theory Feminist theory assumes that life experiences differ for men and women (Belknap, 2006; Messerschmidt, 1993). Feminist theory provides a framework for this study, as one purpose is to understand different strategies men and women use to avoid law enforcement detection during their involvement in a methamphetamine market. Central to feminist theory is the idea of patriarchy, the “social, legal, and political climate that values male dominance and hierarchy” (Belknap, 2006, p. 10). A male dominated society is organized based on the male perspective and male experiences, devaluing females’ roles and experiences while keeping women in a subordinate role (Belknap, 2006; Chesney-Lind, 2006; Daly & Chesney-Lind, 1988). Feminist theory asserts that, despite having to operate within patriarchy, women do have agency, which is an ability to act in a self-directed way, albeit within constraints (Belknap 2006; Morash 2006). Although constraints, or limitations, may affect individuals, they still have control over their actions, which may differ by gender. Feminist theory accounts for agency, and opens the door to understand individuals’ agentic decision making as well as the effects of context on those decisions. Women have shown agency regardless of the limitations, or constraints, they experience (Maher & Daly, 1996; Miller, 1998a). From her study of women’s involvement in street level robberies, Miller (1998a) discovered that women are typically limited to robbing other women and do so in ways different from male perpetrated robberies. When women do rob men, they partner with men and take on a rather reduced role during the offense (Miller, 1998a). Maher and Daly’s (1996) study of women’s involvement in crack markets reveals women’s very limited role. Despite these constraints, however, women exercise agency by getting creative 13 with the lower level positions available to them to earn money. Miller (1998a) and Maher and Daly (1996) find that despite their constraints, women still exercise agency and adapt to their surroundings. This is relevant to the proposed study, as men and women are expected to feel varying constraints based on their position and level within the methamphetamine market and based on gender arrangements. Further, doing gender refers to the ways in which individuals conduct themselves, present themselves to others, and align their behavior with those that are appropriate for their particular sex (Messerschmidt, 1993; West & Zimmerman, 1987). These gendered actions are embedded in everyday interactions and sustain and perpetuate the social meaning of gender. Doing gender is not a performance nor is it ever completed; it is a constantly negotiated role consistent with one’s identity (Messerschmidt, 1993; West & Zimmerman, 1987). In Miller’s (1998a) study of street level robberies, the women would rob men by doing gender and relying on men’s assumptions of gender. Ways in which women accomplished this were to appear weak and nonthreatening or sexually available so they could take advantage of the men while their guard was dropped. This study will look at the ways in which women and men do gender as they participate in drug markets and try to avoid police detection. Drug market research using feminist theory Women’s involvement in other drug markets There is extensive knowledge about women’s involvement in crack markets (Griffin & Rodriguez, 2011; Jacobs & Miller, 1998a; Jenkot, 2011; Maher, 1997). Research on crack markets indicates that women are typically limited to lower level positions that, although riskier, are less lucrative (Jacobs & Miller, 1998a; Maher, 1997). These positions often include sex work (Jacobs & Miller, 1998a; Maher, 1997; Ratner, 1993). While much is known about the 14 hierarchy and women’s involvement, there are no studies of such hierarchies in cocaine production, since manufacturing usually takes place in South America (Jenkot, 2011). Research on crack is limited to hierarchies within distribution networks (Schatzberg & Kelley, 1997). While extensive knowledge is known about women’s role, there is little information about how this relates to the production process. Similarly, research on marijuana markets is limited to a few topics, with little overlap or connection among them. One body of research examines social relations separate from producers (Jenkot, 2011), another focuses on growers and their communities (Riggs Hafley & Tewksbury, 1995), and yet another examines cultivators (Weisheit, 1990, 1991). There is no examination of the gendered structure of production. Comparing methamphetamine markets to crack and marijuana markets is rather difficult because methamphetamine manufacturing is so unique (Jenkot, 2011). Unlike cocaine and marijuana, the ingredients for methamphetamine are legal and must be acquired (Jenkot, 2011). There are also many difficulties inherent in production: the process must be completed in a series of stages, it is time consuming, and there is risk of fires and explosions (Jenkot, 2011). Further, specialized knowledge is needed to manipulate the controlled chemicals (Jenkot, 2011). Because methamphetamine manufacturing is unique, the structure of markets also may be unique. Current research on methamphetamine markets A fraction of the limited research on methamphetamine examines market structures, and even fewer pieces discuss women’s involvement or gendered strategies of law enforcement avoidance. Current literature examining how women negotiate and bargain within methamphetamine markets leaves readers with the impression that women are empowered and disproportionately hold high level positions (Jenkot, 2011; Morgan & Joe, 1996). 15 In his research conducting extensive interviews with 31 incarcerated female methamphetamine users, Jenkot (2011) did not find a single woman who felt unhappy or dissatisfaction with her role in the methamphetamine market. However, all of the women included in the study were involved in upper levels of the market hierarchy. Much like the sex worker in crack markets, methamphetamine markets have “dope-hos” who are accepted members of the group but who have no real job other than trading drugs for having sex with the cooks (Jenkot, 2011). Positioned even below the dope-ho are the users, who may or may not be viewed as part of the manufacturing group (Jenkot, 2011). No women who identified as, or revealed past experiences with either of these roles were included in the sample. Much like crack sex workers (Maher, 1997), it seems possible that these women have strategies for coping with their roles and exercise agency, but it remains unknown. Morgan and Joe (1996) conducted a qualitative study of 450 men and women who either reported using methamphetamine and/or reported involvement in some level of the market. Over two thirds of the 141 female respondents were involved in the methamphetamine market in some capacity, with a majority of them asserting that it was a positive experience. Further, the women debunk outdated drug market myths, for example that their roles are always subordinate to those of men and that women have less self-control over their substance use than men (Morgan & Joe, 1996). Lastly, Morgan and Joe (1996) ultimately found that women entered the drug market with logical and coherent motives and their experiences are as varied as men’s experiences in those same markets. Both Jenkot (2011) and Morgan and Joe (1996) find that women are very empowered in methamphetamine markets, exert a high level of control over their enterprises, and constitute a large proportion of higher level workers. The inequality based structure of most criminal 16 subcultures (Maher & Daly, 1996; Maher, 1997; Miller, 1998a, 1998b; Steffensmeier & Terry, 1986; Steffensmeier, 1983) does not seem to apply to methamphetamine markets. Morgan and Joe (1996) sampled 450 methamphetamine users, 141 of which were women, in San Francisco, San Diego, and Honolulu between 1991 and 1994. While Morgan and Joe (1996) unexpectedly found a high proportion of women in higher level dealing roles, their findings can be compared to current markets in another location. Jenkot (2011) sampled 31 women from Missouri and Arkansas county jails. While very current and highly relevant to this study, the strategies Jenkot’s (2011) sample of women used may differ from the strategies of women who have not been charged. This study will expand on Jenkot’s (2011) and Morgan and Joe’s (1996) research by sampling both men and women from a wide variety of markets about successful and unsuccessful strategies that they use to avoid detection. Further, given that methamphetamine markets are increasingly located in rural areas, this study will add to the literature on rural markets, their structure, and how the members acquire necessary ingredients. Law enforcement avoidance strategies Men and women use very different arrest avoidance strategies in crack cocaine markets. Men rely on interpersonal behavior to determine if buyers are acting like they should be or if they are suddenly drastically increasing the amount of substance they are buying, which might indicate that they are, or are working for, law enforcement (Jacobs, 1993, 1996; Johnson & Natarajan, 1995). Other researchers found that male dealers exercise extreme caution in where or to whom they sell and ensure they are only in possession of a small amount of the drug (Jacobs, 1996; Johnson & Natarajan, 1995; Worden, Bynum, & Frank, 1994). Men also discuss their efforts to sell indoors rather than on the streets to decrease the likelihood of detection (Jacobs, 1996; Johnson & Natarajan, 1995; Sviridoff & Hillsman, 1994). Similarly, men quickly 17 abandon these selling locations so as not to raise the suspicions of police or neighbors (Jacobs, 1996; Johnson & Natarajan, 1995; Svirido & Hillsman, 1994). In their study of women’s arrest avoidance strategies, Jacobs and Miller (1998) interviewed 25 female crack dealers and found markedly different strategies than those used by men. Women focus on fitting in to their surrounds and using gender by dressing casually and/or femininely, not wearing flashing clothes or jewelry, incorporating their selling into their daily routine activities, and/or staging a normal looking situation, such as running errands with a baby or meeting a friend for lunch to conceal the fact that they are actually selling crack (Jacobs & Miller, 1998). Unlike men, women report holding limited hours of business to minimize risk as well as being nice to neighbors, for example giving them food, inviting them over for BBQs, or making polite conversation to build rapport and decrease their likelihood of reporting any suspicious activity that they might witness (Jacobs & Miller, 1998). The only arrest avoidance strategies that both male and female crack dealers report using is the creative hiding and storage of drugs both on their person and in their home as well as their use of coded language over the phone (Jacobs & Miller, 1998). The avoidance strategies used by male and female crack dealers is highly gendered. Men focus on not selling to “narcs” or undercover officers while women rely on the gendered stereotypes of looking feminine and unsuspecting while they go about their business. In the limited body of research on methamphetamine markets, little research discusses the methods men or women use to avoid detection by authorities. Morgan and Joe’s (1996) study of 141 female methamphetamine users in three large cities found that over two thirds of these women were involved in the market at some level. In their article examining the women’s lives, they identified one woman who revealed an arrest avoidance strategy- she sells during limited 18 hours and only to people she knows to protect herself and to avoid high traffic coming in and out of her house (Morgan & Joe, 1996). The unique structure of methamphetamine markets that must produce as well as distribute the substance creates more opportunities for law enforcement avoidance strategies. In his study of 31 women incarcerated for drug related offenses, Jenkot (2011) gained a great deal of knowledge about the structure of methamphetamine markets. During the course of his interviews one woman revealed using highly gendered strategies to avoid arrest. When cooking methamphetamine in the woods, the individuals involved in the market would always ensure there was a man and woman involved. That way, when they heard anyone approach, they could act like a romantic couple by rolling around and kissing (Jenkot, 2011). The woman reports this strategy being effective in deflecting park ranger suspicion. She recounts another practice she used while helping men steal anhydrous ammonia, a gas compressed into liquid and used as fertilizer on farms: while the men were stealing the ammonia she would stay with the car and act as a lookout by popping the hood and acting like she was in distress. She would intercept the attention of any law enforcement officer passing by to keep her co-conspirators safe (Jenkot, 2011). Jenkot’s (2011) interviews indicate that those involved in methamphetamine markets exploit law enforcement officer’s perceptions of gender normative behavior to avoid arrest while collecting ingredients for methamphetamine and while cooking it. Pathways theory This study will also use feminist pathways theory that emphasizes that females have different pathways into illegal behavior than males (Leve & Chamberlain, 2004). Baskin, Sommers, and Fagan (1992) explain their finding of women’s increased roles as drug dealers as resulting from drug selling becoming a new option for women in inner-cities due to the 19 dwindling numbers of available males due to incarceration or violent death. Since methamphetamine markets tend to be in rural locations, these findings of Baskin and her colleagues cannot be generalized to methamphetamine markets. However, their work provides an example of how local gender arrangements shape individuals’ decisions. Drug market research using pathways theory The bulk of drug market research finds that women primarily get access and involved due to their links with men (Maher & Hudson, 2007). With regards to the crack cocaine market, research indicates that women enter the market and obtain a higher status within the market through their male partners (Dunlap, Johnson, & Maher, 1997; Maher, 1997; Sterk, 1999). Maher’s (1997) study of 211 women involved in the Brooklyn crack markets and Sterk’s (1999) study of 149 women in the Atlanta crack markets showed that women obtained jobs dealing drugs through men in the markets. Maher’s (1997) research specifically found that women obtained selling roles by having relationships with male dealers. Similarly, Sterk (1999) found that women not only gain access to the market through male partners, but that when they achieve higher status roles such as selling, the women still rely on the men for enforcement and protection. Women gain access and higher status roles in crack markets through their male partners, who often continue to vouch for the female sellers. Some current research on methamphetamine specific involvement discusses how women move up from mid-level positions to higher level positions, such as cooking (Jenkot, 2011; Morgan & Joe, 1996). Researchers find that women generally take advantage of available opportunities or simply learn to cook by watching others learn (Jenkot, 2011; Morgan & Joe, 1996). The only study investigating women’s reasons for becoming involved in methamphetamine production and distribution finds that the most common reasons were to earn 20 extra money, experience excitement or power and to support a drug habit (Strauss & Falkin, 2001). Morgan and Joe’s (1996) study of 141 women using or selling methamphetamine shed some light on how women become involved in the drug market. The researchers describe women’s experiences and advancement within the drug market, usually with or for a boyfriend or husband. Several dealers have experience selling methamphetamine with former boyfriends and continue to sell with their current husbands (Morgan & Joe, 1996). Morgan and Joe (1996) detail two accounts, and refer to more, of women successfully running a methamphetamine manufacturing business, but who are only running it because their partners were incarcerated or to manage their partner’s increasing substance abuse problems. These women were given the unique opportunity to step in and run the manufacturing business in the place of their incapacitated partners (Morgan & Joe, 1996). Since there are limited studies of men’s and women’s entrance to methamphetamine markets, this study will provide a gendered comparison of pathways to drug market involvement. This study will also examine how women change positions and take on more responsibility within markets. Jenkot (2011) gives an example of a woman who asked a cook, her current roommate, if he would teach her boyfriend how to cook. He did, and while he taught her boyfriend, she watched and also learned (Jenkot, 2011). This shows one instance of a woman taking advantage of a situation to improve her knowledge base and skills to increase her status in the market. Conclusion This study can build on existing research by showing whether prior findings hold in another setting and by providing in depth descriptions of how women and men move into a 21 variety of different positions in the methamphetamine drug market. The bulk of drug market research finds that women primarily get access and become involved due to their links with men (Maher & Hudson, 2007). Some current research on methamphetamine specific involvement (Jenkot, 2011; Morgan & Joe, 1996) discusses how women move up from mid-level positions to higher level positions, such as cooking. Researchers find that women generally take advantage of available opportunities or simply learn to cook by watching others learn (Jenkot, 2011; Morgan & Joe, 1996). The only study investigating women’s reasons for becoming involved in methamphetamine production and distribution finds that the most common reasons for involvement were to earn extra money, experience excitement or power and to support a drug habit (Strauss &Falkin, 2001). 22 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY Research design The goals of this research study are to first understand how methamphetamine markets are structured, such as the roles, size, and format of the market as well as how ingredients are acquired and how methamphetamine is sold. Secondly, this research will examine the experiences of men and women within the market, for example the different ways in which men and women are introduced to methamphetamine and methamphetamine markets, whether they use stereotypically gendered behavior while carrying out their roles, and the level of control men and women have over their involvement. And lastly explore the ways in which participants avoid arrest while carrying out each step in the methamphetamine manufacturing process, specific strategies men and women can use to avoid arrest, and, if participants were arrested, how their regular law enforcement strategies affected that incident. To achieve these research goals, in-depth interviews were conducted with men and women who have previous involvement in any role in methamphetamine markets. Interviews were also conducted with relevant law enforcement individuals to obtain expert views on pathways and detection avoidance strategies. These professionals were asked about themes and general information rather than about specific individuals or cases. Sampling A broad sample of methamphetamine market involved individuals was acquired for this study. In 2011, Michigan had the seventh highest number of methamphetamine laboratory incidents, including labs, dumpsites, and chemical/glass/equipment in the country (US Drug Enforcement Agency, 2012). This high number of laboratory incidents indicates a high number 23 of laboratories and markets. Further, the DEA has a city and county based list of all known methamphetamine laboratories. Michigan laboratories are almost exclusively located in the southwest counties of Michigan. Consistent with research indicating that methamphetamine markets tend to be concentrated in rural area (Herz, 2000; Wermuth, 2000), these counties contain large rural areas. Sampling efforts were disproportionately allocated to southwest counties with high rates of found laboratories. The initial participants were selected through purposeful sampling aimed at recruiting a range of men and women involved in methamphetamine markets (Kerlinger & Lee, 1999; Patton, 2002). Interviews were conducted with men and women who have been involved in Michigan methamphetamine markets within the past five years. This study sampled people involved in different locations and from different markets to ensure a large variety of individuals and markets are represented in the sample. To maximize the likelihood of involving people with varying levels and roles within the markets, men and women were recruited in three ways. First, as part of a separate ongoing study of women on probation and parole headed by Dr. Morash, women were asked a screening question about having been involved in methamphetamine markets. Women who were eligible for this study were asked if they wanted to learn about another research study through Michigan State University and were given my phone number to make contact. Seven women were recruited through this process. Advertising in treatment centers is an effective way to recruit research participants (Frosch, Shoptaw, Huber, Rawson, & Ling, 1996; Metzger et al., 1993; Paul, Stall, & Davis, 1993; Perlis, Des Jarlais, Friedman, Arasteh, & Turner, 2004). Participants have successfully been recruited from outpatient programs (Metzger et al., 1993; Perlis et al., 2004) and in-patient programs (Paul et al., 1993; Perlis et al., 2004). Specifically, methamphetamine using 24 individuals have been recruited from in-patient treatment centers and the trial drug study program (Frosch et al., 1996; Paul et al., 1993). The second recruitment strategy involved leaving flyers at specific locations. Flyers were administered through local drug courts for current or past methamphetamine involved individuals to see. I purposively left flyers at drug court locations that overlapped with DEA data on neighborhoods and counties with high rates of found labs to increase the pool of eligible participants (US Drug Enforcement Agency, 2012). No participants were initially recruited through this method but many women on probation or parole were also in drug court and referred others who were also participating in drug court. I also left flyers at Narcotics Anonymous meeting locations. Using the Narcotics Anonymous website I located meeting locations in three large cities (Lansing, Kalamazoo, and Grand Rapids) with numerous meeting locations that again had high rates of found labs. To respect the anonymity required by the groups, I made sure to avoid going to locations during meetings times. In some locations I left flyers with church staff, secretaries, or shop owners to put in the meeting rooms while at other locations I simply left the flyers on tables. In one location I talked to a woman who leads an NA group, discussed the project and consent form with her, and gave her additional consent forms (at her request) to pass out to group members. These individuals had a unique set of concerns, however, as they were disproportionately worried about having to reveal their names or how the data would be used. Seven participants, five men and 2 women, were initially recruited through leaving flyers at these locations. They also referred additional Narcotics Anonymous involved participants. Lastly, theoretical sampling and snowball sampling was used to identify additional participants. The preliminary analysis was conducted concurrent to the interviews, as consistent with grounded theory methods (Creswell, 2007; Draucker, Martsolf, Ross, & Rusk, 2007). This 25 initial analysis identified some initial pathways and tentative law enforcement avoidance strategies. Theoretical sampling was then used to recruit additional participants who report particularly underrepresented pathways and strategies (Draucker et al., 2007). Theoretical sampling is an effective way to ensure that continued sampling efforts toward collecting data that will help develop emerging theory (Glaser, 1978). Theoretical sampling has successfully been employed in studies examining women’s care giving (Wuest, 2001) and HIV symptom management (Wilson, Hutchinson, & Holzemer, 2002). Wuest (2001) and Wilson et al (2002) used theoretical sampling to guide sampling toward cases that would support any emerging theory. Snowball sampling was used to obtain additional participants (Patton, 2002). Through a system of referrals and targeted advertisement, snowball sampling reduces sampling bias by allowing transition from participants known to police to participants not known to police (Jacobs, Topalli, & Wright, 2003). This is valuable to this study because individuals who were successful in evading law enforcement detection may use different strategies from those who did not evade detection. After the interview was completed I informed individuals that they could also refer eligible people to participate. In congruence with theoretical sampling I asked individuals to refer those who were underrepresented in certain categories, such as family based networks, female cooks, those just buying it, traffickers, those with multiple arrests, and especially boxers, those who were selling boxes of Sudafed and other cold medicines to cooks but were not using. See Figure 2 for a graphical representation of the snowball sampling strategy. The sample included 25 men and 27 women over the age of 18 who had been involved in methamphetamine markets in some role in the last five years. Four individuals have involvement prior to 2007 but were included for various reasons. One male was just buying boxes; two men were trafficking, one had been incarcerated and on parole since a related arrest 26 and therefore was prevented from reentering the market, one could not find a dealer in Michigan and so bought ingredients and drove out of state to his former dealers to give him the ingredients to cook; and one female was the helper to a female cook. Thirty-eight of these participants were recruited through theoretical and snowball sampling including several who were not involved in the legal system nor seeking help for their past/current use or involvement (see Table 1). Consistent with theoretical sampling, a definitive sample size is not appropriate (Glaser, 1978). Interviews were conducted until I reached information saturation. Great care was taken to balance the number of participants from each source of recruitment (flyers posted in probation and parole, drug court, and Narcotics Anonymous), each type of market (small, large, family run, etc), and each county and gender. To be eligible for this study, potential interviewees must have been involved in the methamphetamine market by helping or personally engaging in the purchase of the ingredients, production and manufacturing, selling and distributing in the past ten years. Participants are not required to have ever used methamphetamine nor are they required to currently be active in a methamphetamine market. Triangulation The accounts of the men and women involved in methamphetamine markets were triangulated with data from six interviews with law enforcement officers with antimethamphetamine task force related experience. The law enforcement officers are a mix of local and state police with between five and thirty years of relevant experience each. After the interviews of the male and female participants were analyzed, findings from the interviews with methamphetamine market participants were presented to a small sample of professionals to validate the research findings. These experts were asked if they know of or have experienced any unique pathways or strategies that were not identified in the research. 27 Triangulating data is the use of multiple methods to study one research idea (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Viewing a phenomena from different perspectives can give researchers a clearer picture of its reality (Maxfield & Babbie, 1998). Triangulating the participant interviews with professional interviews and agency statistics also increases the reliability of the data (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Interviews were conducted in the expert’s office or over the phone. Sample characteristics To prevent the linkage of data to participants, subjects were asked for their broad age range rather than their exact age. Participant’s ages ranged from late teens (18+) to 60. The mode age group for the entire population and the female population was 31-35 years. The mode age range for men was 51-60 years. Twenty percent (5) of males and 18.5% (5) of women fell under the 18-25 age groups (see Table 1 for a complete summary). To again protect participants and prevent their data being linked to them, race was simply an observed attribute. Three participants (5.8%), all males, are nonwhite. Nine respondents (17.3%) did not graduate high school. Thirteen participants (25%) of the population graduated high school and 13 respondents (25%) attained their GED later in life, often as a stipulation from the court. Six men (24%) and six women (22.2%) attended some college. Four participants (7.7%) achieved a college degree and one participant (1.9%) earned a graduate degree. Kalamazoo County was the primary county in which participants (15 or 28.8%) reported being involved in methamphetamine markets. Thirteen respondents (25%) indicated Calhoun County as the county in which they were involved. The sample is disproportionately located in the southwest region of Michigan with a few outliers. 28 A majority (49 or 94.2%) of participants reported no longer being involved in any methamphetamine markets. This may be due to sampling through Narcotics Anonymous meetings and drug courts. The men and women interviewed had a variety of ties to the legal system or substance abuse treatment. A majority (19 or 34.6%) were involved in drug court. Nine (17.3%) were on probation or parole, but it is important to note that not all for methamphetamine or drug related incidents. Fourteen participants (26.9%) were actively involved in Narcotics Anonymous meetings. Lastly, eleven participants (21.2%) were not involved in any aspect of the legal system nor were they getting assistance for their drug use or involvement. They had simply made the decision to stop using for a variety of reasons and were successful in doing so. Data collection instrument and procedure A qualitative research design was used to capture the richness and intricate details of the participant’s actions and decision making within the drug market as well as the context experienced by participants, such as the opportunities for work they felt they had (Creswell, 2007). In-depth interviews consisted of open ended questions posed in a loosely structured format. A fixed interview protocol was supplemented with follow up questions in order to elicit elaborations on unique topics. Participants were encouraged to expand on any topic related to the research. Interviews were conducted between December 2012 and April 2013. Interviews occurred at public libraries, restaurants, coffee shops, and other public locations that had an available wireless internet connection. Individuals were shown and briefed on the consent form and were given the option of keeping a copy. Interviews lasted between 45 minutes and two hours. As participants answered questions I typed them into a laptop. I sat next to participants and gave them full view of the laptop screen to ensure I was not entering identifying information 29 (names of their associates) as well as validity- they could correct me if I recorded something incorrectly as I was writing it. For their participation in the study all subjects received a $50 Visa gift card. After the interview the word document on which I typed responses was placed on a secure Michigan State University server and deleted off the laptop. This ensured that it could not be accessed, confiscated, or stolen while en route from the interview location to my university office. The interview was then removed from the secure server and placed on my office computer. The interview consists of three sections. The first inquired about the structure of the drug market the individual participated in; specific questions were asked about how it was set up, how many individuals were involved, and how the substance was produced, sold and used. The second part delved into the pathways into and nature of the participant’s involvement in the market. Questions were posed about when, why and how the individual got involved, what roles he or she performed, money earned, and perceptions and experiences related to the jobs available to him or her. Lastly, questions were asked about strategies for avoiding law enforcement detection. Particular interest lies in understanding the decisions men and women made, choices they perceived to be available to them, actions they took and the repercussions they faced for their decisions. Further, participants were asked about whether strategies for avoiding arrest were based on predictions of how law enforcement would stereotype them or other reasons for their choice of strategies. The consent forms and interview instruments are included in Appendix B. Consistent with retrospective longitudinal research, participants were asked retrospective questions about their involvement with markets and asked to reconstruct events from their past (Fetterman, 1998). Because Habermas and Bluck (2000) and Ruspini (2002) found recalling 30 causal order of life events to be difficult, life history calendars were employed to help participants recollect important events that are easy to identify on a timeline, such as graduation from high school, marriage, divorce, birth of child, etc. These anchors were then used to place events of interest to the study, entry into market or arrest(s), in appropriate time order (Freedman, Thornton, Camburn, Alwin, & Young-DeMarco, 1988; Hanks & Carr, 2008; Krienert, 2003; Roberts, Horney, Piquero, & Weisburd, 2010; Sutton, 2010). Experts were asked similar questions. Experts were asked about methamphetamine market structure as well as trends and themes in ingredient acquisition, production, and distribution. Next, these professionals were presented with general themes and findings from the analyzed participant interviews and asked if these themes are consistent with the strategies they know about or have experienced with methamphetamine market members. Any themes not identified by the male and female participants were probed for further explanation. Analysis Interviews were uploaded into NVIVO, a qualitative software package. The data were coded for themes in categories such as market positions, market structure, participant’s point of entry to the market, men and women’s use of gender, and law enforcement avoidance strategies. Interviews of males and females as well as their participation in their respective stage of the market were analyzed and coded separately, but compared in the analysis. To code, meaningful pieces of data were grouped into categories that reflect the developing themes in the research. Intercoder agreement is an effective way to establish reliability (Creswell, 2007). After initial coding was completed, an instructional codebook was created detailing the process. One other researcher with qualitative data analysis experience used the codebook and coded a random sample of questions from a sample of cases. Miles and 31 Huberman (1994) suggest an 80 percent agreement rate. After establishing a coding protocol for a sample of 10 cases on 5 themes by two researchers, intercoder reliability was established with a Cohen’s Kappa of .95. Interrater reliability was based on the match between the two researcher’s coding of characters as they correspond to a certain theme. 32 CHAPTER 4: MARKET ROLES AND STRUCTURE This chapter examines the different roles within markets, market structure, how participants manage to acquire the ingredients necessary to manufacture the substance, including the highly regulated Sudafed, as well as the different ways in which methamphetamine is sold. Some markets operate with few people and some have large numbers of participants. Markets varied widely in how loosely or rigidly they were structured. Roles Participants hold a variety of roles within their markets. The major roles are cooks, helpers, dealers, and boxers. Over half of participants (27 or 51.9%), 14 males (26.9%) and 13 females (25%), admit that their primary role within their respective methamphetamine market is a cook. Five participants (9.6%), all female, are helpers. Two men (3.8%) work exclusively as dealers. Seven participants (13.5%) identify as boxers. Nine participants (19.3%), four males (7.7%) and five females (9.6%), primarily identify as users and were not active in markets. One male (1.9%) and one female (1.9%) did not fit into these categories. The male, 118, begrudgingly gave occasional rides to his father [116] and brother [117], both cooks, when they needed to go pick up ingredients or components. He did not use methamphetamine nor did he help purchase or steal ingredients. In exchange his father and brother gave him gas money. The female, 222, worked very briefly as a boxer for a cook until they started dating. He then prohibited her from helping throughout the process, although she still hangs around and occasionally uses. Table 2 lists the number of participants in each role and compares gender differences within the roles. Theoretical sampling was used to ensure similar numbers of males and females in each position, so it is unclear if the position of men and women within markets supports feminist theory. 33 Cooks Cooks are responsible for manufacturing methamphetamine. They measure the ingredients, choose the recipe they want to use, and mix the ingredients. In stark contrast to Morgan and Joe’s (1996) finding that women rarely manufacture, and when they do, their involvement is typically in a partnership with their boyfriend of husband, this study found equal numbers of male and female cooks with very few women working in partnership with a boyfriend or husband. In this study, 27 (51.9%) participants identified as cooks. Only one participant, a male, admits knowing how to cook without identifying as a cook. Because he did not like cooking and did not think he was good at it, he prefers to be involved as a boxer (more below). Nearly even numbers of men (14) and women (13) identify as cooks. Two women cooked with male partners. One woman persuaded her formally involved boyfriend back into cooking when she was manufacturing with her daughters. Another female cooked with her husband. While only half (26 or 50%) of markets are described by participants as hierarchically structured, the role of cook is always considered the top position. A cook explains: “When you get to the point of cook or helper, you’re there. There’s nothing higher. You only have to deal with one person, the person you’re working with” [209]. Another cook describes the process and some of the tasks she performed: Participant: I’d get everything measured out and then start. I’m pretty crazy like that. I’d get some stuff set up that normal people wouldn’t have going on. You have to filter it when it’s done. You have to dump it back and forth between filters and you have to touch the filters to do that and it contaminates them. I made a filter system that was about 2 feet off the ground. I connected filters to wires so I wouldn’t have to touch them. Interviewer: What problems typically came up? 34 Participant: Maybe losing pressure. You’d have to release the pressure and sometimes there was no pressure, it’d just go flat. If you got too much water in it and it would get too hot and the bottle would leak. That would happen more and you’d have to transfer bottles. And being stupid and not bringing everything with you that you needed. If that happened I’d put it off til the next day and just wrap it back up. If I wasn’t totally prepared I wasn’t in the right state of mind to be doing it. Most people would just do it anyway. [205] 205 explains the different tasks with cooking and the unusual act of innovating one of the steps. 202 describes her role as cook: I’d get a box and start cooking. I would wait until I got 10 boxes. I cooked once a week or every two weeks. Most people cook every day, as soon as they get pills and supplies. I don’t always have supplies. They would last a few times before they had to be replaced. I’d cook in a friend’s house, motel rooms, woods, anywhere I feel comfortable. The time depends on how quick you want it done. It can take 3-4 hours or 24 hours. [202] Cooks report drastically different lengths of time for cooking. Some have a batch completed in under an hour while others typically take several hours. Participants generally believe that anyone can learn to cook if they want to, but some did not want to learn. Some are scared or do not want to deal with the addicts and business and so stay involved in other roles. No participants who indicate that they want to learn to cook were unable to do so. Law enforcement officers are seeing an increase of women fulfilling the role of cook. While five of the officers interviewed say they have seen an increase, one officer believes the involvement of female cooks has matched that of male cooks: Yeah, women and men equally. Lately the population of women involved in manufacturing methamphetamine has increased, I believe. And that’s just kind of my own opinion. But I could think of specific instances lately where women have been directly involved in the cook or actually directed the cook themselves. [304] While my sampling strategy does not allow inferences to be made about the frequency of female cooks, the findings suggest that there is an increase. My ability to find female cooks quite easily for this study may indicate that they are rather common. Local law enforcement validates the 35 increasing role women have in methamphetamine markets in higher level capacities. Helpers Five females (9.6%) identify their primary role in methamphetamine markets as helpers. Helpers act as the cook’s assistant and perform a variety of tasks to support the cook (Sexton, Carlson, Leukefeld, & Booth, 2006). One helper comments on the gendered nature of the role: “Women generally helped out. It’s almost like pioneer days, men do all the work and women clean up the mess” [203]. Ironically her female partner was the cook she assisted. One helper describes the variety of tasks she performs during a cook session: The cook would have, we was doing the shake and bake, so we have pop bottles, the cook would have all the ingredients. We have to cut the batteries open. We’d be doing the batteries, putting the rock salt in the bottle. Any ingredients, the cook would say ‘put this in the bottle for me.’ But sometimes he’d do it and say ‘sit back and relax.’ [207] Another helper explains that in addition to being the watch (look-out) she also had to act as the cook-watch: “I used, bought boxes, acted as watch out. I’d do the running, like if they needed water or something. I’d cook watch [watch the cook] where we made sure the cook didn’t fall asleep” [206]. A unique set of tasks exist when cooking in a house. One helper says: Participant: Once everything got put together I’d go upstairs [from the basement] and watch the front door and make sure no one came who shouldn’t be there. I’d make sure the smell didn’t get to the main floor. Interviewer: How did you do that? Participant: Burn incense, candles, cover the vents, airtight the basement door. It didn’t matter though, the smell is so bad. [203] As the cook’s assistant, helpers perform any task that makes the manufacturing process easier on the cook, so the cook can focus on ensuring the correct measurements of highly explosive chemicals are mixed together correctly, often while everyone is high. A number of other helper jobs exist. Thirty-three (63.5%) participants reveal that there 36 were often, if not always, users and addicts hanging out during the cooking process. In 14 of these markets (26.9% of all markets), these users were given some task to perform. Rarely did they act as the cook’s helper, as cooks generally have a close friend fill that role. Participants describe these other helpers as performing such tasks as cleaning up and taking out garbage, acting as a lookout, delivering methamphetamine, keeping the cook company, crushing the pills, and/or peeling batteries. Cook 105 describes the roles of his helper and how anyone else hanging out gets put to work: I sometimes had a helper. They’d be getting boxes to help set up. They’d be doing this, throwing this away, running this out to the garbage, taking care of the trash, meeting other people. Users would hang out, leeches. Like my little helper and the person whose house I was at. One girl had her boyfriend there, it was at her house. They all became helpers. [105] A female cook recalls these users being good company during the long cooking process: There were maybe about 6 of these people. We called them fiends. They were sometimes bothersome. They can be company- when you’re up all day and night cooking, it can get boring and the fiends can keep you company. Sometimes you get aggravated because you’re getting everyone high. [201] 107, a cook, describes the complicated relationship with these users-turned-helpers. He talks about how annoying and constantly present they are, but how they could be put to work: Yeah, some of them stayed at our house for weeks at a time it seemed like. Some of them would look out. If we needed something we’d send them to the store or send them on mission and pick this up. You get paranoid and can’t let them leave ‘til it’s all done. You can’t trust them. [107] While helpers are sometimes officially designated by the cook and repeatedly used, other tasks are often assigned to users who are hanging around waiting for cooks to finish their next batch of methamphetamine. Dealers 37 While designated dealers are very common in other drug markets (Kerr, Small, & Wood, 2005) they are not mentioned in methamphetamine market literature (Jenkot, 2011; Morgan & Joe, 1996; Sexton et al., 2006). Two male participants (3.8%) in this study describe their primary role as a dealer. One young dealer admits: “I was more helping them sell it. They’d make it and hand me a big bag and say bring me this much money back” [108]. Another dealer details his efforts to acquire chunks of trafficked methamphetamine from many different people: I went up to his house once after he had come back [from California with methamphetamine]. My partner was always trying to get him to front him ounces. Wherever we could find a supplier and get small chunks and sell and make money and get high and give money back. There were some women involved too. I knew one woman, she was involved with some bikers, she was a dealer and a user of course, she was pretty strung out. She could get it or had it and would sell it to you. It wasn’t really hard to find it per say, it was hard to find people to give it to us to sell. Everyone was afraid they were going to get ripped off. They had a right to be afraid. My experience was that everyone involved is a thief and not to be trusted. [114] It is also interesting to note the ease with which 108 was given methamphetamine to sell and the cooks’ lack of concern for the correct amount of money returned. 114, who did not deal with friends, had a very difficult time getting traffickers and other dealers to trust him with product and speaks to the culture of mistrust. Boxers Sudafed boxes are difficult to acquire (Jenkot, 2011). One cook states: “We have our people, mainly addicts, who want to get you boxes, because it gets you dope. That’s the hardest component to obtain” [204]. Boxers are people who work around current legislation to get Sudafed for cooks. This involves smurfing, going from pharmacy to pharmacy in one town, across towns, or across counties, or organizing groups of people to alternate their purchasing. Seven participants (13.5%), four men (7.7%) and three women (5.8%), identify as boxers. 38 Respondents in this study report getting reimbursed anywhere from $25-75 per box, plus the price of the box. Boxers not only bought Sudafed, but also bought or stole batteries and other ingredients. One boxer explains: When I first started with just the boxes it was just me and my kid’s mom. We were getting boxes together. There was a few different people, 3 different people that I sold them to… They all bought the boxes to make the meth. They were all cooks. They didn’t know each other. They were separate networks. Me and my kid’s mom go to the same stores to get boxes… We’ve used boxes to pay rent, rent car, gas bills, to buy kids Christmas and birthday gifts. The money is great, it’s great money. It’s better than having a 9-5 job. We always got money for the boxes. [113] Another boxer illustrates the difficulty with the pharmacy limits: “As far as myself, I, you’re limited to 3 boxes a month at any pharmacy. So of course every 10 days I would get a box. I had 2 friends who were on different schedules, different 10 day rotations they would get a box” [223]. Batteries are another crucial component for methamphetamine manufacturing. Although they are expensive, there are no limits on battery purchases. But because they are so expensive, boxers and cooks often shoplift batteries: “You don’t want to buy batteries, it used to be too easy to steal. There’s a lot of desperate people out there, you don’t have to trick them, they don’t ask questions. They don’t want you to tell them but they know what it’s for” [110]. 101, a boxer for his extended family based market, stole and purchased a great deal of boxes and bought matches in bulk: “I ordered 3 cases of matches once. I have a campground, but it was for dope. I was good at supplying them” [101]. 101 used his legitimate employment as a cover for purchasing necessary components. While most boxers buy their limit each month and sell them to cooks, a small number of boxers organize large networks of people getting boxes. These professional boxers are further described below, in the section outlining how ingredients are acquired. Users 39 While nearly all the participants (50 or 96.2%) used methamphetamine during their involvement in their market, nine participants (17.3%), four men, (7.7%) and five women (9.6%), in the current study were only purchasing the substance to use and were not involved in acquiring ingredients or manufacturing. One infrequent user admits he only used it when he could afford it: “If I could afford it I would buy it. If I didn’t have it no big deal… I used occasionally. I would but if I could afford it if not no big deal. It was just a recreational thing. It probably lasted 6, 7 years” [123]. One woman discusses her and her husband’s history with the substance [115]. It was me and my husband to start with. We’re pretty quiet and stick to each other. There were 2 main people that we would get it from. The other two people were cooking. Other people could get it for you. We [and 115] were working, parenting, buying, purchasing. [225] They had two regular dealers to increase the odds of scoring methamphetamine when they wanted it. Another woman went so far as to send her boyfriend to buy methamphetamine for her because she was scared of getting involved: My boyfriend used to buy it. I never had to deal with the nonsense. I just gave him the money if he needed the money from me, if he needed grams. It was usually a gram of .5 gram. I gave him money and that’s what I got. I didn’t want to know who what when, it kept me safe. I didn’t have to meet anybody, know anybody, or where they’re at. It kept my life simpler. Tweakers get on my nerves and then I [be]came one. [217] Users have many reasons for not getting involved in the manufacturing process. Some cannot afford a steady habit and just want to sporadically use when they have the means. Other users are scared of getting involved for legal reasons. Whatever their reasons, it is always the users’ decision to stay uninvolved in the market, because cooks and dealers are always looking for more boxers. Overlapping roles 40 During the interview, participants discussed their primary role in methamphetamine markets. These positions, however, are rather fluid (Dorn, Murji, & South, 1992). Individuals reveal participating in other roles at different times or helping out friends. Cooks also occasionally buy ingredients and assist other cook friends by working as their helper. Fifty-four percent (28) of participants (16 or 31% males and 12 or 23% females) indicate performing all four of the roles: cooking, helping, getting ingredients, and selling. Figure 3 diagrams the different roles participants report performing. The table illustrates the high number of participants who have held more than one role, while highlighting the two members who have never used methamphetamine. One cook explains how he and his cook friends would sometimes help each other out rather than cook independently: “There were 3 of us that cooked and as many people as you could get to get boxes. The 3 of us would help each other cook” [121]. Another cook describes how the good cooks tended to only cook but everyone else’s roles were rather flexible: There were no real specific role except who was, the better cooks, they were the ones that pretty much stuck to the cooking. It was a mix of men and women. Anyone with a habit would do whatever it takes to get you the final product. There was no big syndicate or no one big boss. Everyone helped everyone so they could get the buzz that they were looking for. [103] Lastly, a female cook describes what she feels to be the inevitable cycle of methamphetamine market involvement and how flexible roles ensure the product continues to be produced: “Everyone does all the roles, people help each other out. I was friends with everyone in the market. It goes in a circle. Everyone eventually gets locked up, so individuals branch out- like if everyone gets busted but one person, that person starts to cook. People get out and come back” [202]. However, similar to other drug markets, women are disproportionately helping out in lower positions within the market (Maher & Daly, 1996). But, unlike other drug markets, there 41 are high numbers of females located in positions of power. Market structure Participants describe a variety of different market structures. Most markets are small and some markets consist of a network of friends while some are mostly family members. Markets are differentiated by whether or not they are hierarchically structured, and many participants report some connection to other markets, indicating some overlap across markets. Tables 3 and 4 outline each participant, their primary role, other roles they performed, and information about the market structure in which they participated. Size A vast majority of participants (49 or 94%) were involved in small markets. These are markets with roughly 10 or fewer people working to cook and sell methamphetamine. Twentysix (50%) participants indicate that the market in which they were involved consisted of fewer than ten people total, including the boxers. Of these 26 individuals, 14 respondents are male and 12 are female. These exceptionally small markets produced less methamphetamine than larger markets, but were often more organized and controlled than larger markets. One woman explained the set up in a market with designated boxers: There were 2 cooks, they were both males. There were 2 helpers, they were females. They were friends with the cooks, they were called cook buddies. There were people getting boxes, it varied by the number of people you could find with ID…Most of the time there were about four. They were a mix of males and females. There were testers, they’d test the meth when it was done being cooked…There were people who didn’t use it, they’d just watch out for people. It was in a dope house. We always kept the same cooks. There were about 3-4 [cooks]. If one got tired or if one wasn’t available he’d get another. [206] This network had a clear separation of tasks to effectively obtain the components and manufacture the substance. Another man had a very small network: he would cook and 42 frequently rotate his one helper. He utilized a small network of boxers, but also got components himself: I pretty much did it by myself… Some stuff I would get myself or I’d get it through other people who were users. They weren’t friends, just other people who were using would get stuff for me… I had my own little set up. I had a helper every time. I had different helpers at different places I would go. [Who were they?] They were users. [105] He defended his preference for a small market by calling larger markets messier: “Other markets are messier for sure. Especially when you hear about the horror stories about people blowing up. Too many chiefs and not enough Indians” [105]. He also admitted to not trusting anyone, which influenced his preference for a small circle of helpers. Not all markets had such rigid roles, however. A few markets did not have designated boxers. In these networks the members performed all the tasks rather than have a division of labor for different tasks. One man describes how his small network of high school friends performed all the roles: There were four people. It was me and three others. The three others knew how to cook it. I was a helper. This was before they put the heavy ID on them [medicines were not behind the pharmacy counter and Sudafed purchases were not logged]. We were all four getting boxes. We’d go to different stores. We’d each go to a different store. [108] In this market, the young men worked together to accomplish each step of the manufacturing process. Other markets were still small, with roughly ten or fewer individuals manufacturing or helping to manufacture the methamphetamine, but had a larger network of boxers. Individuals report that these large networks of boxers consist of between ten and forty people. Twenty-two individuals (42.3%) reported involvement in such markets. Nearly twice as many females report being involved in these markets than males (14 and 8, respectively). One woman describes a rather typical set up to a market with a large number of boxers: 43 When I worked by myself I kept numbers small. [At the most, how many were there?] Probably about 30, including the people getting Sudafed. In that market, everyone was involved in getting Sudafed. There were 2 people cooking and they were cooks. There were sellers and other people who run between for money. There were lookouts and people who would go buy supplies, like Colemans, ice packs, and batteries. [201] 201 describes the small network of manufacturers: the two cooks, few dealers, and few lookouts, and a large number of boxers. One cook reveals his motivation for having such a large number of boxers: “It was all friends basically that would get my ingredients. Probably 20 of them. You got through them, they burn out on you or you burn out on them” [116]. He is alluding to the fact that some boxers get caught and snitch on you or either party, the cook or the boxer, will eventually “rip the other one off” and destroy that relationship. Having a large number of boxers prevents your market from coming to a halt when bridges are inevitably burned. A female who worked as her husband’s helper explained another need for large numbers of boxers: legislation. She divulges: “We have a calendar we had to have. You can only get a box every 15 days, 11 days, whatever. So let’s see, [counts] we had about 17-20 pill buyers. We’d rotate them” [226]. Lastly, there are two cooks who worked alone. One cook [106] had a large network of boxers who would supply him but he preferred to cook totally alone. Another female [205] stole and bought all her ingredients herself and cooked alone. She started out working with a few helpers but branched out on her own to better avoid police and to produce a cleaner, superior substance. These tiny, insulated markets are rare, but they do exist. In stark contrast to the small markets are large markets. These markets have twenty or more individuals working to manufacture the substance or distribute it. Three men reveal 44 participation in such markets and they describe each market rather differently. One man describes a typical market that simply operates at a larger scale. Those working on a regular basis- about 20 of us worked in a general area that stayed pretty close. We helped each other out, traded stuff if needed. There were about 8 cooks, mix of men and women. They would sometimes have helpers, but not always. Some liked to have a helper, some liked to do it on their own. Anyone, everyone was getting boxes. There was no separation, cooks, everyone got boxes. You had people waiting, people picking up supplies, some people drive other people around, drivers, or just general shoppers for boxes. There were no real specific role except who was, the better cooks, they were the ones that pretty much stuck to the cooking. Anyone with a habit would do whatever it takes to get you the final product. Everyone helped everyone so they could get the buzz that they were looking for. [103] 103 talks about a large pool of individuals working together and sharing tasks to successfully manufacture the drug. The other two large markets are rather unique. One man [101] was involved in a large network of family and friends. He describes 25-30 people being involved with all of them cooking and fighting over Sudafed boxes and other components. It was a chaotic network where each person was out for themselves rather than the maximum production of methamphetamine. The last large market was with a man who was buying methamphetamine in California in the 1980s through the 2000s before moving to Michigan. It was distributed rather differently out west as biker gangs controlled manufacturing and relied on large numbers of dealers to sell it: About hundreds of people did it in that county in the 80s and 90s and into the 2000s. I did it with about 150 people, young people and adults. Every one talked about it that it was only the bikers. We never knew who was in charge. We never saw them. I never bought from a dealer myself. I only bought it from people that secretly got it from dealers. [122] In this unusual market, bikers controlled the manufacturing and initial distribution. Smaller scale dealers then purchased little amounts to sell themselves. This system of manufacturing and selling required a great many people to successfully implement and control. 45 Family vs. friend based networks Friend based networks are the most common for both men and women. A vast majority of them, 36 out of the 38 friendship based markets (or 94.7%), are small markets. Twenty men (80% of men) and nineteen women (70.3% of women) report being involved in networks composed of friends and acquaintances. Friend based drug markets are very common across all substances (Edmunds, Hough, & Urquia, 1996). One man says “It’s usually a network of friends, at least for me in my area. We were from small farm town communities. We all grew up as friends” [103]. Another woman explains: We were our own little community. We would attract each other. Boyfriends bring girlfriends in and vice versa. It’s common for people to know each other through some other means. People knew each other. They got in through friends. [201] Not only were friendship based networks working together to manufacture methamphetamine, but friends were often responsible for recruiting users and boxers, which will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 5. Another woman describes this process: Friends. Word of mouth. People don’t want to meet anyone new. Everyone was users. The drug is what connected. You have to know somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody. I got involved through friends… From friends. It connects groups of friends. It’s like a grapevine. [208] Friendship based networks are the most common structure of methamphetamine markets in the population studied. Friend based networks may be attributed to methamphetamine’s disproportionate presence in rural areas (Herz, 2000; Wermuth, 2000). 103 explains that he grew up in a small farm community where everyone knows each other. In rural areas where everyone knows everyone else, it can be obvious who is engage in illicit activity and interested parties can easily seek out involvement. Participants 103, 201, and 208 (among others) describe markets consisting of good, often longtime friends. 46 Other participants discuss the fleeting and rather situational friendship of addicts. Five individuals (four men and one woman) describe such superficial friendships. 116 describes his friends of convenience, only brought together by the drug. And mostly friends but the only thing you got in common is meth. If you take that away you ain’t friends anymore. I been out of prison a year now and I don’t really even say hi to them. You’re circle gets really small when you get out of prison and stop using drugs. It goes back to family. [116] 116’s friendships disintegrated one he decided to stop using methamphetamine. Because he was no longer interested in helping manufacture or sell methamphetamine, his friends no longer had any need for his presence. Another man describes his lack of friends after ceasing to use methamphetamine: “[They’re] not really friends, just people I met through the market. Acquaintances. I ain’t got no friends now if that tells you anything. One told on me and the other went to prison right after I got caught and got 6 years” [117]. 117 is not the only one to describe how friendships change through methamphetamine addiction. Friendships, especially newer ones, quickly disintegrate with the threat of arrest: “They were all associates or friends. There were no real good friends in addiction. My best friend got caught up with Cook X and told on us” [204]. 204 describes how methamphetamine changed her friendship. After getting involved, her best friend switched alliances to a rival cook and then turned 204 into law enforcement. While a majority of participants describe their methamphetamine markets structured around friends, both old and new, a few individuals further describe how methamphetamine can destroy these relationships. A substantial group of participants (10 or 40% of men and 8 or 29.6% of women) report involvement in family based networks, networks with at least three family members or a partner (Natarajan & Belanger, 1998). These markets are also disproportionately small, as 17 out of the 18 (94.4%) individuals detailing family based networks identify less than ten active members. It 47 is interesting that so few men and women are involved in family based markets when women are disproportionately introduced to the substance through male partners and family members (Brecht et al., 2004; Maher & Hudson, 2007). These markets often include multiple generations and extended families: Interviewer: Who was involved in your market? Participant: Some cousins and my stepdaughters. My girlfriend, she mainly smoked it and got pills. Toward the end I was kind of showing her a little how to do it but I’m glad I never finished showing her. Some boxers were related but some were random people who were customers. [107] 107 identifies a large number of family members involved in his methamphetamine market. Another woman reveals a female dominated familial market: Interviewer: Who was involved in your market? Participant: Girlfriend and boyfriend. Some family. I cooked with my mother and sister. I started with my family. I was introduced through my family. My mom did it and my sister, then eventually my little brother. My aunt does it. [212] A highly unusual finding is the large number of family based methamphetamine markets. Many participants identify a parent, siblings, and often extended family as central to their market. Five men (9.6%) reveal involvement in both friend and family based networks. One participant, 116, learned to cook through his niece’s boyfriend and they cooked together for about a month until 116 went to prison. When he got out, 116 taught his son, 117, to cook and they worked together with 116’s other son, 118, for about a year. Then 117 branched out by himself, 116 continued cooking with friends, and 118 continued his limited involvement with 116. Many individuals outline phases of methamphetamine market involvement. For example, 124 spent a few decades cooking with longtime friends. After his friends got arrested he started cooking with his girlfriend. Interviewer: Who was involved in your market? 48 Participant: Friends. Longtime friends. I was 18 when I started and we knew each other years before that. I met the [main] guy from California from one of the guys. He came out here and said ‘hey let’s take a trip and make some money.’ … The 5 people we dealt with were good friends… Interviewer: What happened after they were arrested? Participant: I started making my own, just for me and my girlfriend, just for our own personal use. I can’t say that, once in a while her sister or someone would come over with a box and we would split it with whoever got us boxes. [124] 124 spent decades trafficking methamphetamine into Michigan with longtime friends before getting involved in a small market with his girlfriend and her sister. He went from trafficking large amounts of methamphetamine into the state to sell to manufacturing small amounts for personal use. Involvement in more than one market is not uncommon (18 or 34.6%) and a small number of participants describe involvement in both family based and friend based markets. Law enforcement officers validate the friend and family nature of the markets. One officer explains: “A lot of it is family based as far as people getting it. You see a lot of brothers who manufacture or families on the manufacturing side of it” [304]. 306 further describes the tight knit nature of the markets: “Yes, long time friends. It is. It’s amazing how fathers and sons and daughters and mothers get involved. Cousins, friends, long time acquaintances. All of the above” [306]. Methamphetamine markets are unique in that they consist of close friends who often share a lengthy history and family members. It is not uncommon to have several generations of family members working together to manufacture methamphetamine. Hierarchy Hierarchies are common in drug markets for just about every type of drug besides methamphetamine (Curtis & Wendel, 2000; Jacobs & Miller, 1998b; Maher, 1997; May & Hough, 2004; Schatzberg & Kelly, 1997). Research on methamphetamine markets has found mixed results (Jenkot, 2011; Morgan & Joe, 1996). In the current study, respondents were rather 49 split in whether or not they believed someone to be in charge. Nearly half of the respondents, 25 (48.1%), identify a leader in the market while just over half, 27 (52%), reveal no leader. Consistent with feminist theory (Belknap, 2006; Messerschmidt, 1993), women are more likely than men (16 or 59.3% and 9 or 36% respectively) to identify the market in which they are involved as controlled by someone. One cook describes his domination: I made all the decisions. At other people’s houses I was at their mercy if they would let me come over or not. But that was me, I made the decision of who and when to sell to. When I was at someone’s house I’d give them their cut and then leave. [105] 105 made all the decisions about manufacturing and selling and was instrumental in sustaining his market. The only problem was finding a house in which to cook. To maintain his power, 105 would pay people for the use of their residence as a cooking location. Another woman describes how her cousin maintained control: “One main cook, he was in charge [my cousin]. He’d pick where, what room, what house we’d cook in, and who we would get boxes from. No one ever challenged him. We never went against him” [206]. 206 describes a cook in control of his operation who makes every decision regarding obtaining ingredients, manufacturing, and selling. Unique to drug market research is the notion that not all methamphetamine markets are structured in a hierarchical way. One woman expresses her frustration during a law enforcement encounter when they kept asking her for the name of her market head: There was never a kingpin, never ever a kingpin. The cops, when they raided, kept saying ‘give us the kingpin,’ that doesn’t exist around here. Police don’t understand everyone makes their own stuff. It drove me crazy in questioning, they were getting mean about it. I’d say ‘what are you talking about? This isn’t coming from Columbia, Mexico. This is coming from our pharmacies, from our grocery stores. Anyone can get it.’ With a max of $50, you can buy stuff and turn it into $500.” [203] 50 She describes small markets that function primarily to sustain the member’s use rather than a large network with a leader filtering drugs down to be cut and sold. One man rather comically describes the market as rather sloppy and barely functional: “No, it wasn’t like an organized crime, just a bunch of addicts running around doing what they can” [103]. About half of respondents indicate involvement in loosely structured markets where members work together without strict direction to effectively produce the substance. While involvement in large markets is rare in the current sample, respondents did identify both hierarchical and nonhierarchical structured large markets. Only one man [122] was involved in a large market structured hierarchically, but his situation is unique as it was back when he lived in California and the market was run by motorcycle gangs who had designated dealers. Conversely, two men detail involvement in large, nonhierarchical markets. One had a great deal of family and extended family involved who were scrambling around and taking advantage of each other for supplies. The other man was part of a market where everyone worked together and shared roles to accomplish methamphetamine production. Connected markets It is common for drug markets to overlap (Curtis et al., 1995). Nearly a third of participants (16 or 30.8%) discuss an overlap in other methamphetamine markets. Nine men (36%) and seven women (26%) describe involvement in more than one market through roles as boxers, buyers, dealers, or cooks. Four participants in the current study describe selling Sudafed boxes to multiple cooks and markets. One man explains: When I first started with just the boxes it was just me and my kid’s mom. We were getting boxes together. There was a few different people, 3 different people that I sold them to. One was closer to Galesburg, one was in Oshtemo, one was in the south side of 51 Kalamazoo. They all bought the boxes to make the meth. They were all cooks. They didn’t know each other. They were separate networks. [113] While 113 describes selling boxes to a few markets that are unaware of each other, participants generally indicate a larger awareness of the connectedness. For example, 115 regularly purchased methamphetamine from two different cooks. He explains their connection to each other: It was the same two friends we bought from. They were both male. They were not related to each other. They knew each other, but they didn’t like each other. They just knew each other. One taught the other how to cook and he went out and did his own thing. They had a falling out over something other than that, right? I don’t know. [115] Both boxers and buyers benefit from knowing individuals in multiple markets: boxers can increase their sales by supplying multiple markets and buyers benefit by increasing the odds of some cook having the product on hand. Cooks, however, often reveal the overlap of their networks: It was a little circle, about 10 of us. About 1-5 people were in the circle next to us. We were intertwined somehow… It’s a community. That’s the best way to describe it. Before we were actively in the community we were smoking crack and hidden in the bedroom. Meth is social, once you get caught up with one person you spin in their circle. You get close with people and hang out with their circle. It’s a whole circle of little circles. There was no one I didn’t know but there were people I didn’t like. The community stretched from Battle Creek to Sherwood to Athens to Kalamazoo. It’s everywhere. It’s taking over. [204] The circle of little circles appropriately describes the small overlap among markets. This overlap is useful, however, as cooks benefit from connections to other markets and other cooks. One cook describes how his overlapping network of cooks would share supplies: “Those working on a regular basis- about 20 of us worked in a general area that stayed pretty close. We helped each other out, traded stuff if needed. There were about 8 cooks, mix of men and women” [103]. When asked about problems that come up while cooking, 103 further explained the 52 benefits of knowing other cooks: Interviewer: What problems typically came up? Participant: Leaky bottle. Not enough supplies. At that point you call someone else in the circle, or you keep calling one of your friends who has it. If it’s 3 am you can’t go shopping. [103] Market overlap increases revenue for boxers, supply for users, and available components for cooks. Being connected to other markets is more common for those involved in friend based markets (14 or 27%) than family based networks (4 or 8%). Figure 4 diagrams the overlap of friend based networks, hierarchically structured markets, and individuals who report a connection to other markets. This may be because friends are more likely to be involved in several markets, usually in several phases, as members get arrested or as helpers or boxers learn to cook and then branch off on their own while individuals involved with family are more likely to stay with that network. These connected individuals are also more likely to be involved in small markets (14 or 27%) than large markets (3 or 5.8%). It is important to note that individuals participating in the three large markets in this study all indicate connections with other markets. Of the 49 participants who report involvement in small markets, just 14 (28.6%) affirm connections to other markets. The transitions common in friend based markets explain the connections individuals have with other markets. The fact that only 28.6% of individuals involved in small markets have connections to other markets may be because they themselves have transitioned among markets. It is also possible that some participants know of other markets but are not on friendly terms with its members. It is not uncommon for individuals to steal from one another before switching markets. If this is the case, more participants may know of other markets but do not feel connected to them reach out to them when in need of a component. 53 Participants are rather divided in identifying whether the market in which they were primarily involved was hierarchically structured (25 or 48%) or not hierarchically structured (27 or 52%). A majority (72.2%) of the eighteen individuals connected to other markets describe the markets in which they were involved as not hierarchically structured. Hierarchically structured markets are much more rigid in terms of roles, and members may not have the chance to work with or get to know other markets. Because non-hierarchically structured markets are more loosely formed, members have more freedom to intermingle with other markets. Acquiring ingredients Participants candidly discuss spending large amounts of time trying to get boxes of Sudafed or trying to find people who had it or could get it. While people talk about Sudafed specifically, they often use this term to refer to any substance containing pseudoephedrine. 204 explains: Sudafed is “the hardest component to obtain.” Despite it being so difficult to obtain, men and women used a variety of strategies to work around current legislation to ensure their steady supply. The most common means of obtaining Sudafed was to simply purchase it within the constraints of the law. Seventy-three percent of participants (38) admit that they and others in the market purchased the boxes as allowable by law. Because current legislation limits Sudafed purchases to one box every ten days, individuals discuss the need for everyone in the markets to help with purchasing. One woman recounts: Interviewer: Who was getting boxes? Participant: All of them. There were probably 20 getting boxes since you could only get a certain number a month. [216] Everyone but the cook would be reimbursed for each purchased box with either methamphetamine or money. It was common for cooks to pay, on average, $7 to cover the price of the box and then additionally pay them either a quarter gram of methamphetamine or, 54 depending on the market and cook, between $25 and $75. Another man explains: Anyone, everyone was getting boxes. We had some that didn’t do it, but would get them and you’d pay them a higher price. They were $7-10 a box and they’d get up to $50 a box. You could pick them up to make extra money. There was no separation, cooks, everyone got boxes. [103] While the cook in 103’s market did get boxes, many cooks preferred not to purchase them as it would leave a paper trail to them from the pharmacy. 212 explains: “It’s always usually like, if somebody’s cooking, when I cook I want someone else to buy the boxes for me. If I were to buy my own boxes it could come to me. You always want someone else to do your dirty work for you. It’s kind of like a lot of the same people in the crew” [212]. The drug using and manufacturing population is very aware when laws regarding their ingredients change and make necessary changes to stay undetected. While all pseudoephedrine containing cold medicines are now located behind pharmacy counters and require ID to purchase, not all registries are online and connected. Participants know what stores are not connected and target those stores for their purchases: Now that you have to show ID, we would get 4-5 people together and go to a town with lots of pharmacies. I’d go into Walgreens and buy some, then go to the next place and buy more. Some stores just have the book, they aren’t online or connected to other stores. You learn what stores don’t use the online registry. [201] Another woman illustrates how she and her husband maximize box purchases for their market. She kept track of a calendar and the purchasing schedules for a large number of boxes as well as her daughter, her daughter’s friends, and her husband’s daughter: We have a calendar we had to have. You can only get a box every 15 days, 11 days, whatever. So let’s see, [counts] we had about 17-20 pill buyers. We’d rotate them. I kept track of where they needed to go and when to get them. Some when they would give the box, when they knew it was their time they got it and waited for us to call [for it]. About half just wanted the money. If you’re just out shopping with your mom, grandma, have them pick up a box and call me when you get one. Go to Walgreens and 55 Meijers. We hit places in Battle Creek, Saginaw, Grand Rapids, they were coming with 7-8 boxes each. I don’t know how they got that many, through their friends, they were really cheap. They were $6 each. Getting them I had my kids, husband and his kids, one of his kids, the rest, one of the boy’s mothers, was getting cold medicine. And friends, acquaintances. It was pretty much mixed [male and female]. I’d get the boxers, my whole work day was going out and getting the boxes for my husband. I’d have to find the clientele… My daughter it was just about the money. She never did it [used methamphetamine]. She was 19. She gathered up her friends. They wanted the money. His [her husband’s] daughter was in it just for the money. [226] 226 was very well organized to constantly supply her husband with boxes so they could cook together. To maximize the number of boxes obtained, some individuals paid indigent populations to purchase boxes. Five participants (9.6%) related their use of homeless people to purchase boxes: “It was easy to come up here and get drunks under the bridge to buy a few boxes of pills, just give them $50” [101]. Another man recalls picking people up from the mission: “It’s down at the mission you know where they’re going to be and when they’re going to be there. It’s on a schedule and it’s not hard” [121]. Having other people not associated with the market purchase the boxes was advantageous, because there was no paper trail back to the market members. This is why some cooks refuse to buy boxes, even when in need. Additionally, five participants (9.6%) further organized large groups of boxers. I call them professional boxers. Two men and two women were cooks while one man was simply a middle man. One male cook explains his system with crack addicts and how it evolved: At first it started where I would pick crack heads up and take them to different pharmacies and I’d give them money. They’d come out and give me the boxes and change and I’d give them $5. At the end I just gave them money and they’d come back hours later. I quit driving them to pharmacies. I’d give them like $300 and they’d bring me all the boxes, receipts and change. I’d give them $5 for each box. [105] This was a highly productive system that ensured 105 always had boxes with which to cook. 56 120, another cook, had a similar operation with over 40 homeless people. He would take homeless people with ID to pharmacies and pay them to purchase the Sudafed boxes. The remaining three professional boxers used unique populations. 204, a female cook, was involved in illicit markets since childhood. She spent most of her life as a drug dealer of various substances. In addition to cooking and selling methamphetamine, she also sold Vicodin to a large customer base. These unassuming, middle class customers would either get a discount on their Vicodin pills for also bringing a box of Sudafed to the deal or would pay exclusively in Sudafed boxes. 204 rather vaguely explains: I got my boxes from a different network, there were no meth addicts. I had a side business that didn’t have anything to do with meth to get boxes. Sending in an addict to get boxes signals red flags. I’d get business men to get boxes. It’s different when you send in tweaked out addicts to get boxes. My side business was giving business men things that they needed. It was another way of making money. I’d take and give them what they wanted and have them give me boxes. It was cheaper than having meth addicts get me boxes. They weren’t in any books, so no red flags. I could always have 5-7 boxes every day through my other network. [204] While this Vicodin market was 204’s doing, her partner, and helper while she cooked, further explained: “Lots of people got boxes for us who liked Vicodin. Instead of paying us we’d have them get us a box. The people who were into Vicodin weren’t who you’d think. We’d trade Vicodin for boxes” [203]. Another female cook relied on a network of younger boys to supply her with boxes. In exchange she gave the boys cash or alcohol. She admits: There were a lot of boxers. I used to know this little group of boys who bought them and I used to get the liquor to buy them. There were about 7 [boys]. Everyone could buy 3 boxes a month… I’d call the boys and tell them I needed boxes or they’d get some and call me… Yeah. They boys knew [what the boxes were for]. As long as they had beer to drink they were fine. He had so many friends who could get them. I’d pay them well for it. Even if I wasn’t for beer I’d give them money. Like certain people if they were on it 57 I’d give them .25 gram for a box. If they were kids I’d give them either money or alcohol. [215] To remain undetected from law enforcement, 215 relied on younger boys to purchase all her boxes. This way her name was not in any Sudafed registries and she still had a steady stream of boxes. The last professional boxer is the only one who is not a cook. 110 is simply a middle man who, in order to get freshly made, uncut methamphetamine, would trade boxes and stolen goods to a cook. He reimbursed his crew with drugs or cash. He explains: I exchanged dope or money for passing stuff along to the distributor. I wanted uncut dope. The risk was just to get good dope. I always try to insulate myself away from these people. Desperate people do stupid things. In Michigan it was mostly just ephedrine and good lithium batteries- they’re hard to steal. But you could get someone out of prison or just out of rehab, someone desperate for money to buy you ephedrine. You just take them around town one day… I found people who would steal thingspeople you party with, liars, junkies, thieves, just people you got high with. You tell them you have money for people who can steal things, kick them something, they give up a name, and the next thing you know you’re driving around stealing things. It’s not rocket science. It’s a scary, base existence. These people are just barely surviving, living in shelters, staying on someone’s floor, not even a couch, in cockroach infested houses… You were never fair to them. You took as much as you could and gave them as little as possible. They were addicted, strung out. They were probably calling more than me just selling their ass. They knew if they could steal something I would buy it. That’s why you walk into Walgreen’s and everything’s locked up. Once I got the stuff I’d call up the dealer and trade it for dope. It depends on how much stuff I had, I might buy some [dope] too. It wouldn’t be just one gram, it’d be several grams. I was making $45/hour working in Kalamazoo. [110] By exploiting people just out of rehab or desperate for money or drugs, 110 is able to cheaply get boxes and batteries to trade with the cook for methamphetamine. While his candid discussion of exploiting disadvantaged populations is surprising, the trend is not uncommon the drug world. A number of participants (9, or 17.3%) also admit to tricking unsuspecting people into buying boxes. 109, who was cooking with his family, admits that tricking people into buying boxes is the most lucrative role in methamphetamine markets. When his mother and step-father, 58 the main cooks in his operation, would offer $75 per box, he would trick people, reimburse them the $5 for the price of the box, and then pocket the rest of the incentive. This way he got a box and a great deal of cash: I told him [friend] I had a cold and I needed it. I would tell him that one of my family members needed it but you couldn’t get much out of it. You couldn’t offer them much money or they would know. You can make the most money doing that. You can give them $5 for the box and put the $70 in your pocket. [109] Another female cook took advantage of her job as a home health care provider. When she would take clients to the store she would get them to buy boxes for her: Like elders, clients. I’d tell them I’m not feeling well and I don’t have my ID so can you do to the pharmacy and get me a box? Yeah. It was all about getting the boxes but keeping hush-hush about what you were doing. People that didn’t know what Sudafed was for. I found them through work – at home health care. Those were the people I was tricking. They’d want their money or fix too. With the elderly people I didn’t have to give them anything for it because they didn’t know. I just told them I didn’t have my ID and take them into the store. That’s one of the worst things I feel bad for. I should have never done that. [214] While tricking people into purchasing boxes was possible, few people could sustain a supply like 214. It was often only for a box here or there. 218 talks about it not being worth it since there are plenty of people who are willing to accept payment to purchase the boxes: “There are too many willing people. It’s not worth it. If you’re going to trick them for what, one box? What are you going to do with one box?” [218]. Nine participants regularly tricked unsuspecting people into purchasing boxes for them while one found that to not be worth her time. Acquiring other components for producing methamphetamine is rather easy in comparison to obtaining the boxes, but still required some talent so as not to look suspicious. 112 explains how he would purchase different ingredients from different stores, specifically targeting ones that sold them in the largest quantities: 59 The main ingredients are the phosphorous from striker strips on matches, iodine, and I would use hydrogen peroxide to turn it into crystal. Sometimes I’d buy matches in bulk, 24 boxes of 100, but that would only be 2 batches worth. It took 1200 striker strips per batch. Sometimes I’d go into the store and only get a few boxes of matches. Or I was too paranoid to get more. In the Kalamazoo area iodine is only sold in 4 ounce bottles and it would take 6 of those per batch. I found a farm supply in Decatur to buy 16 ounce bottles and I’d buy a few at a time. It would take, shopping, it would take 4-6 hours of shopping. [112] One cook describes the discretion needed to successfully and inconspicuously purchase all the other components for manufacturing: Didn’t go in the store and buy just the stuff that I needed to cook- if I needed some Coleman’s fuel I would do some shopping in that area, some materials for lanterns, fishing stuff, stuff that could be incorporated, to blend in. If I was buying salt, I’d buy a little bit of groceries. You don’t want to go up with a cart full of stuff that is blatantly obvious that you’re making meth. [103] This quote describes how individuals purchase small amounts of other ingredients as they need them from different places. Mixing in nondrug related purchases is also important, and is one of many strategies used to avoid law enforcement detection, which will be discussed in detail in Chapter 5. Participants recount in detail their struggles to get all the necessary ingredients. For many methamphetamine market members, it is as consuming as a full time job. Local law enforcement is aware of the smurfing technique. One officer reveals: “Now it’s more getting lots of people to travel around to stores to buy their two boxes. If you get five to six people and they each buy their two boxes, maybe at a few stores” [303]. Officers are also seeing an increase in boxers who do not use methamphetamine. They discuss the increase in college students and families who sell boxes to cooks. Officers also discuss how market members use homeless populations to purchase large quantities of Sudafed. 304 explains: And I know that basically all those purchases and components are done with smurfing. Right now there’s a lot of college kids, there are a lot of homeless people who have a good ID, go to stores, purchase the pills, and they’re getting a pretty hefty return on their 60 purchases. So you go purchase a box of Sudafed for $10 and you’re getting $40 plus the $10 to cover the cost of the purchase. I know that’s the big way that they’re picking up the pseudoephedrine. [304] Officers are aware of the newer smurfing and boxing strategies that have arisen from the pseudoephedrine legislation. Selling Cooks trade The most common way for cooks to unload their product and for users to obtain product is to trade components or supplies for small amounts of methamphetamine (Brecht et al., 2004). Forty-six (88.5%) participants report trading components for methamphetamine. 104, a cook, explains the process: Sometimes I’d call them, sometimes they’d call me and say ‘I got a couple of boxes.’ It depends on how bad I wanted the drugs at the time. If I didn’t need drugs and someone called me with a few boxes I’d give them a few bucks for them. I paid between a .25 gram or $20 for a box. Some people I’d pay up to $25 or a half gram plus the price of the box. [104] Cooks often have boxers calling them and asking to trade but also admit to calling boxers and nagging them to get boxes or other ingredients. 209 discusses how she relies on boxers to bring her all of her supplies. The ultimate goal is to not have any records or transactions connecting the cook with methamphetamine components. She details: Interviewer: How did you get the boxes and ingredients? Participant: People who were strung out who weren’t in the circle of making it. We’d send one to get draino and flip them a little dope when it’s done. Send one for batteries and flip them some dope. That way they weren’t all in the stores getting stuff. People would drop stuff off and watcher would take it. We made sure we had everything we needed. Interviewer: Were people always getting boxes or did the cook call people and ask for them? 61 Participant: People were always getting them, but the cook also called people. Users call and want fronts, they’d go in and steal batteries or lye. They’d get dope for free. We didn’t care how it got there as long as we got what we needed. [209] 209 reveals a rather distanced relationship with her boxers. Some cooks, however, value their boxers and treat them well to ensure future transactions. 109, who was cooking with his sisters, wife, and mother, shows that they took care of the boxers before splitting the yield among the cooks. Treating the boxers well ensured they would continue to sell him boxes: “We’d make sure the people that were involved got their cut before anyone else. We wanted to make sure they were going to be there for us next month. We’d give them extra and bribe them a little bit. Then we’d split it 3 ways among the cooks” [109]. One cook, 116, exclusively traded his product so the only way to get any was to get some components to trade: “You gotta come up with boxes if you want dope. People with boxes get dope first. The more boxes you get is how you move up the hierarchy. If you’re a special box getter you’re getting special treatment” [116]. Sometimes cooks find themselves in a catch-22 they need ingredients to cook but boxers will only give them ingredients in exchange for drugs. 120, another cook, describes the preferences of different boxers: [I would] trade people .5 gram for a box or cash, or half cash and half dope. Some good friends I could give it to them afterward. If you got homeless people they wanted it up front. People you didn’t know wanted it up front. I would have people calling and texting if I let them know something was going on. But normally I’d just get ahold of them later after it was done and it was all cleaned up. [120] Friends trust 120 enough to give him the ingredients, let him cook and clean up, then deliver their share later. People he did not know, however, expected to be paid immediately. Being able to pay friends back after preparing a batch of methamphetamine helps cooks perpetuate their cooking cycle and stay in business. This is often crucial in the chaotic drug world. 62 Law enforcement officers validate this occurrence. 302 affirms: “Majority of the time I dealt with it it was users that were trading it to a cook in exchange for product or it was people that were supplying lots of Sudafed and lots of boxes for some type of cost benefit for them” [302]. All the interviewed officers indicate that this is a common strategy in methamphetamine distribution. Cooks sell After trading supplies for methamphetamine, respondents reveal that nearly all the cooks (49 or 94.2%) sell additional product. Three participants (5.8%) could not verify that the cooks sold remaining product. Two men bought their drugs from dealers and did not know if the cooks also sold it, and one woman was only selling boxes to the cooks and did not use nor know anything about the market. One cook describes how he cooked to primarily feed his own habit but would sell a little for extra spending money: “I made it but it was pretty much for myself, I had friends and stuff but a lot of them made their own. I had a few that I sold it to, maybe four to five people. Just enough to get gas and cigarettes” [117]. Another cook discusses her primary interest in selling it: I sold it, traded it for more pills, or used it. I mainly sold it. If I got down to a gram I sold it rather than used it. At first I had 2 people who bought everything I made and sold it. But working with the people in the market I could get it all sold. … I sold it with friends, through friends. I always decided who to sell to; if it goes from my hand to another person, I would decide. If it went from a friend’s hand to someone else, she would decide. [202] Some cooks manufacture for personal use while others are more into making money. 63 Six cooks (11.5%) explain the group cook. When several cooks compile ingredients and cook together they split the yield and then have discretion over what they do with their share. 209, a female cook, details: After it was cooked, the cook would split it. The people who brought us batteries and stuff would come off [the total amount], then we’d split it. From there it was broken into sacks. If you wanted to sell a gram that was most of your stuff. Or we’d split it into quarter grams, break it down and get on the phone. People were already blowing you up for it. Half the time it was already gone before it was done. [209] While 209 describes selling most of hers, another female cook, 207, admits to using most of her share: “We’d split up the batch, we’d each get so much gram-wise. I shot most of my dope. The main ones would sell it or split it, sell this much and do this much” [207]. These six cooks participated in group cooks rather frequently and found it to be an effective way to pool components to maximize the amount of methamphetamine produced. Another common trend among methamphetamine cooks as well as in other drug markets is to have regular customers (Denton & O’Malley, 1999; Pearson & Hobbs, 2003; Topalli, Wright, & Fornango, 2002). This is one strategy for avoiding police that will be discussed in Chapter 5, but it is important to note that in this regard methamphetamine markets are similar to other drug markets. Twenty-four cooks (46.2%) talk about regular customers. 104 explains: It didn’t matter how much I made, there were always people to sell to. I had regular people I dealt with, plus myself. … I had regular people I would sell to. Some strangers, if they were people that knew somebody. I decided that as the cook. [104] He describes the large demand for methamphetamine and how he could always sell what he cooks. 104 also describes his discretion in selling to strangers- they had to have a connection to him through another buyer. This is common with drug dealers (Edmunds et al., 1996). Another male cook explains: 64 Normally I had the same set people to sell to. Just because, I don’t know, it’s one of those things you’re really paranoid on it and when you start seeing everyone going down for it, going to prison, that’s something I don’t want to do. I’ve been to prison but not for [drugs]. [119] Cooks prefer to keep a regular client base because it not only guarantees the quick sale of their product but they feel safer selling to people they know and trust. Law enforcement officers also validate the trend of cooks selling their product outright. 306 describes the demand outweighing the supply: “Usually the cook has already got people lined up to purchase it by the time it’s poured through the filter and dried out it’s ready to be sold and there’s people waiting” [306]. Some law enforcement officers find that cooks will trade what they owe their Sudafed suppliers and then sell the rest. Both strategies of dissemination are common. Dealers sell Another uncommon finding in methamphetamine markets is the use of dealers to distribute product (Jenkot, 2011; Morgan & Joe, 1996; Sexton et al., 2006). Fifteen (28.8%) participants talk about the role of dealers. However, law enforcement officers admit never seeing this type of distribution technique. This practice manifests itself in three ways: the typical dealer, buyers who intend to resell for a large markup, and the cook’s partner. Six participants (11.5%) discuss the typical dealer who is often found in other drug markets (Kerr et al., 2005). 108 met a group of cooks through his high school. He did not want to cook and was too busy to hang out with them regularly to be a bigger part of their market, but they did trust him to sell their product. He explains their loose arrangement: I got to keep so much of it, like a couple grams. They expected so much money back and I got to keep the rest but we were friends so if I didn’t make it all it was ok. They’d give 65 me 7 grams and they’d expect $300-400. The first bag I think they just gave it to me. [108] In this arrangement, 108 had the discretion to sell the methamphetamine for whatever price he wanted and keep any profits greater than what the young cooks expected back. 124 describes a larger, more secretive operation. 124 cooked with three friends. To retain their privacy and safety, they used five dealers, who were also friends, to sell what they manufactured. When we started making it we were making around a pound at a time total. We’d split it among the 5 dealers. We kept ours and then split it to the dealers. Truthfully I knew who they were but I didn’t have anything to do with them. They would tell me who they were getting it from. At the bar they’d say I have to make a call and call someone and I’m thinking that’s mine. Nobody knew. The 3 of us were very low key. [124] 124 continues the ruse by telling people his dealer was his supplier: “I had some at the bar [and] if someone wanted some I’d say I just got it and I got it from X, my dealer. Everyone thought I was getting it from the same person they were getting it from” [124]. An additional six participants (11.5%) discuss selling large quantities to buyers knowing that they have the intention of reselling it at a higher price. Many cooks found it convenient to unload so much at a time and were unfazed by the buyers’ quick turn around and profit. One cook recalls: I’d sell big amounts to a few people. And you get the same price. If you buy 10 grams for a $1000 you get the same price. You might throw in a few extra grams. I sold him a few grams for $100 each and I watched him sell them for $300 a gram. That was an extreme case. Usually it’s supposed to be a $100 a gram. But how else was he supposed to make money? [Laughs] They would make 3 halves out of a gram. Plus they’re putting some on the foil before they leave the house. [116] 116 finds humor in the fact that his buyer would cut his methamphetamine and then sell it for three times what he paid. A female cook who took pride in her high quality product talks about how her product would get disseminated to members of rival markets: It’d be gone by 2 or 3 pm the next day if you were done by 6 am that morning. People would call me. I didn’t sell to a lot of people. I sold to a few people from different 66 circles. They would come get it and distribute it to their circles. The downfall is once you make good dope and people know it’s yours, your name is out there. [204] Many cooks admit privacy and secrecy to be leading factors in wanting to use dealers. 204, however, found secrecy very difficult. She found that her quality product prevented her from staying unknown. An additional three participants (5.8%) describe the cook’s girlfriend as dealer. She was the one who would make the sales, deliveries, and handle the business. 208 describes this kind of set up: Most of the time you never really bought from the cook guy’s hand. You bought it from the girl, playing the role as the girlfriend or the girlfriend. Like an assistant. You call and she takes the call. All 3 parts I was involved in there was a guy [cook] and the girlfriend you dealt with. I’d call the girl. [208] While relatively uncommon, some cooks entrusted their girlfriends to handle their business. Users knew these women were the ones with whom they had to make contact and deal. Conclusion In this chapter I have outlined the different roles in methamphetamine markets as well as several market formations. Markets consist of several key members: the cook, helpers, dealers, boxers, and users. Cooks are responsible for mixing the ingredients and carrying out each step in the manufacturing process. Helpers are there to assist the cook. They prep ingredients, measure ingredients, act as lookout for unwanted visitors, including police, and run errands for the cook. In most markets cooks sell their own product. However, a few markets make use of dealers, individuals who are given large amounts of methamphetamine to sell with a set amount of money to return. Dealers protect the cooks and allow them to remain unknown to the general community. Individuals who buy boxes of Sudafed and/or buy or steal other ingredients are referred to as boxers. With ever increasing limitations on the quantity of Sudafed purchasable in 67 a month, cooks depend on boxers for the crucial manufacturing ingredients. While nearly all (50 or 96.2%) of participants in the study used methamphetamine, several participants identified only as users and did not assist with the manufacturing process in any way. They simply purchased the substance without further obligation or involvement. While individuals identify with primary roles, in reality the distribution of tasks is rather fluid. Members will take on other roles temporarily to help friends and ensure methamphetamine production. Another key finding is that market size is rather evenly split between large and small markets. Some cooks kept small operations to sustain their habit while others managed large operations to try and make more money. In addition, markets are generally made up of friends. Many participants work with longtime friends. However, family markets do exist. Several markets consist of multiple generations of family working together. Another interesting finding is that roughly half of the markets in which participants were involved are hierarchically structured, with the cook in charge. As the leader, the cook would make all the decisions regarding the market, such as where to cook, when to cook, who would get boxes, who he or she would sell to, etc. Further, nearly a third of participants reveal a connection to at least one other methamphetamine markets. This connectedness benefits nearly all participants as cooks are able to share components and users have an alternate cook to contact if one does not have any product available. Ingredients are acquired in a number of ways. Boxers buy Sudafed boxes and either buy or steal other components, like Coleman fuel, batteries, or ice packs, and sell them to cooks. Some people trick friends or family into buying them boxes. A small number of participants (5 or 9.6%) are professional boxers. They have networks of people who are not involved in methamphetamine markets who supply them with boxes that they then sell to cooks. 68 Methamphetamine is distributed in several different ways. The most common way is to trade a quarter gram for one box of Sudafed. Boxers also accept cash as payment, but reimbursement through methamphetamine is more common. Cooks also have users who simply purchase the substance and do not supply boxes or other components. Another significant finding pertains to the use of dealers. While common in other drug markets, the use of dealers is not typical in methamphetamine markets. Dealers either buy a large amount of product from a cook to resell or are fronted a quantity with a set amount of money expected to be returned in compensation. 69 CHAPTER 5: GENDERED EXPERIENCES This chapter examines whether men and women have different experiences within methamphetamine markets. It specifically explores the pathways through which men and women are introduced to methamphetamine and methamphetamine markets and how they advance their role within the market, as well as the ways in which men and women use their gender within the market. Additionally, this chapter examines the level of agency men and women feel as revealed in their discussions about the amount of control they feel over their role, and experiences of rebelling against their role or others in the market, and bargaining with others in the market. Lastly, the prevalence of women trading sex for methamphetamine is discussed. Pathways to methamphetamine use Consistent with pathways theory (Baskin et al., 1992; Leve & Chamberlain, 2004) and drug market literature (Brecht et al., 2004; Dunlap et al., 1997; Maher & Hudson, 2007; Maher, 1997; Sterk, 1999), both men and women were predominantly introduced to methamphetamine through men (43 or 82.7%). Seven participants (13.5%) were introduced through women. Figure 5 diagrams the different categories of introduction. Only five participants (9.6%), two men (8% of males) and three women (11.1% of females), who were introduced to methamphetamine through family later joined family based networks. Two participants (3.8%) have never used methamphetamine: 118 drove his father and brother around to get ingredients and 224 purchased boxes for a cook. Introduction through men Of the forty-three participants (82.7%) who were introduced to methamphetamine through men, twenty-one are men (84% of males) and twenty-two are women (81.5% of 70 females) (see Table 3). Nineteen (36.5%) participants were introduced to methamphetamine through male friends. Most participants were simply casually presented with methamphetamine and chose to use it. 202, who eventually cooks, says: It wasn’t really peer pressure- I had turned it down lots of times. I had lots of friends who did it but I was always against coke and stuff. I had just bought a new car, I was in a good mood, and I was at a friend’s house where lots of people were getting high. People were passing it around and I turned it down a few times then finally said yes. It was just a thing to do at the time. [202] She was around methamphetamine many times without trying it, but finally was in the right mood to accept it from her male friend. Another man explains: “In early 2003 it was really just a social party drug. My coworker, roommate that I was living with at the time, he introduced me. It got to be a weekend thing” [112]. Participants described themselves as unfazed when they casually first accepted methamphetamine from their friends. Six women (22.2%) were introduced through their boyfriends or husbands. This is consistent with literature on other drugs (Brecht et al., 2004; Dunlap et al., 1997; Maher, 1997; Sterk, 1999). 219 details her transition from being against methamphetamine to trying it: My boyfriend was doing it. I knew he was doing it. I knew he was doing it and I told him I was going to flush it, or get it away from me, or I was going to fry it in the eggs. He said he wanted to smoke it. He said ‘I don’t feel right, come in the room with me.’ I did. I looked at him and it wasn’t that bad so I tried it. [219] Because she saw her boyfriend, now husband, while he was high and was not scared, she decided to try methamphetamine. Another woman talks about how her new boyfriend introduced her to methamphetamine and the chaos that tends to ensue: In April or May of 2007 I started. Me and my boyfriend of seven years broke up. I was dating a guy I knew for 17 days- he introduced me to it. He stole my car and went to prison within 19 days. He destroyed my life. I never snorted it. I smoked cigarettes, so it wasn’t that weird, it didn’t feel like I was doing drugs. [205] 71 Consistent with research on substance use (Brecht et al., 2004; Dunlap et al., 1997; Maher, 1997; Sterk, 1999), it is most common for women to be introduced to methamphetamine through male partners. Seven participants (13.5%) name family members as their initial source of methamphetamine. Four men (16% of males) and three women (11.1% of females) disclose cases of brothers and cousins who introduced them to methamphetamine. A female cook from a friend based network recalls her first time trying the drug: “I first tried it in 1998. One of my brothers was selling it. I went to his house to stay the weekend. I stayed up all weekend. I didn’t feel high but I didn’t go to sleep” [203]. Two participants (3.8%), one male (4% of men) and one female (3.7% of women), who name their male cousins as their first source of methamphetamine indicate that they first used it thinking it was cocaine. 105 recounts: “Actually I was offered it and it was called meth and I turned it down. I did cocaine in the past and knew that as speed. I was offered speed later and said yes. I was smoking it and it was different- it was meth. It wasn’t that bad” [105]. 105 had turned down methamphetamine in the past but was misled into using it when his cousin referred to it by the same name as cocaine. 213 admits a similar situation: In 1999/2000 was the first time I did it. I thought it was coke. My cousin put a line in front me and I thought it was coke. I did it at my place of employment and it was meth. I was up for 3 days and crying and he was like ‘you didn’t do it like it was coke, did you?’ and I was like ‘yeah.’ I didn’t do it for a while after that. [213] 213 was under the assumption that she was ingesting coke and not only consumed methamphetamine for the first time, but also consumed a very large dose. While most participants talk about their first time using methamphetamine as a moment of opportunity, two women (3.8%) specifically sought out the substance. One, devastated by the 72 loss of several family members, discloses: I thought if I turned to drugs the pain would go away or I would kill myself. I first got it from a friend. I went to him to get high. I knew he had it. I wanted something to take away the pain. I was looking for meth. I figured it could get me high and take away the pain. And it was the only drug he had, I knew that. [227] 227 sought out methamphetamine to self medicate. Introduction through women Seven participants (13.5%) were introduced to methamphetamine through women, three (5.8%) of which are men and four are women (7.7%). See Table 4 for a comprehensive list of participants, their roles within the market and the person who introduced them to the drug. Two of the men (8% of males) were introduced through female friends. One man explains: “A female friend introduced me to do it. ‘Try this’ and that’s what it was. Just try a little bit and see how you like it” [123]. 104 recalls a similar story. A female friend offered him some and he accepted. He quickly learned to cook and manufactured and used daily until his arrest. One man (4% of males) was introduced through his then girlfriend. He used with her for a few months then got involved in his family’s market. Half of the female participants introduced to methamphetamine by women were given the substance by friends and half were introduced through family members. Two women (7.4% of females) were introduced through female friends. 210, a boxer who only used it a few times, was introduced through her best friend, 209, a cook. 210 bought a few boxes, got curious about methamphetamine, and used it a few times. 226, however, was exposed to methamphetamine at a much earlier age. I was introduced through a cheerleader in high school. I’ll never forget her. This new girl came… She came from California and brought ice. I was like ‘what’s that?’ Boom, 73 it was on. That’s always been my drug of choice, meth. It was very, very scarce. I don’t know how she got it. [226] 226 was introduced through a female friend in high school, eventually learning to cook. Two other women (7.4% of females) were introduced through family members. One (3.7% of females) woman explains: In 2003 I just walked in on my aunt and her boyfriend using it and they asked me if I wanted to try it. When I first started using it was with my aunt and her boyfriend that introduced us…. I started using with aunt and family, learned to cook with friends, started buying boxes after turning 18, then cooked myself. [220] The other woman introduced by family members was not only given methamphetamine from her daughters [212 and 220] but was also taught to cook by them. She recalls: “In 2007 I was working 7 days a week with 10-12 hour shifts. My girls came up to me and said here, this will keep you awake at your job… In 2007 I learned to cook hands on. They taught me hands on and had me do it” [214]. Tables 3 and 4 offer a comprehensive list of participants, the roles each participant worked, information about the market structure, as well as who introduced them to methamphetamine. Pathways to methamphetamine market involvement Participants’ introduction to methamphetamine is often a separate event from entering and working within a methamphetamine market. Two previously discussed participants (3.8%) never used methamphetamine. Four participants (7.7%) defy tradition and worked in the methamphetamine market before using the substance. Fourteen participants (26.9%) became involved in a market through the individual who introduced them to methamphetamine. Women are more likely to enter a market through this route. Thirty-two participants (61.5%) do not enter the market of the person who first introduced them to methamphetamine. These participants describe a second methamphetamine market involved individual who becomes their entry into 74 the market. A majority of participants begin as users, with a small number of participants who start off in higher level roles within a market, such as a boxer or cook. The length of time between participant’s first time using methamphetamine and when they enter a methamphetamine market varies greatly. Consistent with pathways theory, Morgan and Joe (1996) find that women tend to become involved in higher level methamphetamine market positions by taking over their husband’s market after his arrest. However, inconsistent with pathways theory (Baskin et al., 1992; Leve & Chamberlain, 2004), the present study finds few gendered differences in how men and women enter and advance within the market. Most importantly, similar numbers of men and women are taught to cook by market members. There is no gender discrimination within markets that places higher value on male cooks at the expense of females. Women are, however, more likely to be recruited into a market, meaning market members will ask women more often than men to go pick something up or perform some task during the manufacturing process. Lastly, women are more likely than men to learn to cook by observing and memorizing the process. It is unknown why this is. No women interviewed mentioned being denied the opportunity to learn to cook if they wanted to learn nor do any members report refusing to teach someone if they were interested in learning. Women may just resort to watching and learning in lieu of asking to learn. Involvement before use Four participants (7.7%) have rather untraditional pathways to market involvement in that they first use methamphetamine after they become involved in a market. All four participants describe different reasons for finally using the substance. 113 spent three years as a boxer before finally trying methamphetamine: 75 I was getting boxes from 2009 up until December 2012… I got involved with buying boxes through my actual brother. My brother has cooked, sold it, used it, he’s one of the ones that going to die from it. I started off getting boxes for him. When I was getting boxes for him he was giving me $30 a box. My step brothers told me about the guy on the south side and he was giving me $60 a box so I stopped dealing with my brother which pissed him off. I only got boxes for my brother for a few months, not long at all… In June of 2012 me and my kid’s mom split up. There was talk of me not being able to see my kids anymore and she, well I pretty much put the blame on her (but not anymore) but I was out of control. I was drinking real heavy and become real violent. I put her through a door. We split up and I was staying with my stepbrother. They were smoking one day and I was like you know what? I don’t have anything else better to do so why not. And that was the beginning. I stayed up my first time 3 days straight using it. [113] 113 was buying boxes for years and then after losing his girlfriend and children, he unravels and decides to try methamphetamine. 113 also started selling methamphetamine as his use rapidly increased. Similar to 113, 218 recently lost her children and felt she had nothing to lose by getting involved with methamphetamine. While the loss of his girlfriend and children prompted 113 to try methamphetamine after already being involved in the market, losing her child prompted 218 to enter the market. After she joined her father’s market, 218 simply decided to try it because she was around it. 125’s decision to try methamphetamine was very casual. 125 started selling it and buying boxes for some school friends. After a few months he opted to try the drug out of curiosity: Well I mean I was selling it so I wanted to try it. ‘Til I found out everything that was it and I kind of slowed back a little bit but it didn’t stop me from using it. I just felt better when I was using it, all my anxieties went away. In 2010 I first started selling it. A few months after started selling it I tried it. It was to the point where I wanted to try it to make sure it was sellable to other people. I was getting boxes at that same time. [125] After selling for so long 125 was curious about methamphetamine and wanted to ensure the product that he was selling was good quality. 215 was involved in cooking, selling, and buying boxes. She performed these roles for 76 an unknown length of time before finally trying it for more energy, one of the highly desirable side effects (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2006b; United States Drug Enforcement Administration, 2006): A good friend from high school, his friend showed me how to cook. He said it’s the devil, if you learn you never forget it… In 2009 I started cooking it and selling it. I was buying boxes to help for him to cook. I was getting it to sell it. I was selling it ‘til my son was 10 months old. Then I started using it for energy. I had an inspection at the house and I needed to get up and clean. I asked my significant other for some. I was on probation but I wasn’t dropping. It was on from there. [215] 215 performs a number of roles within the methamphetamine market before finally succumbing to use. Involvement after use Twenty-seven percent of participants (14), five men (20% of males) and six women (22.2% of females) entered the methamphetamine market through the individuals who were responsible for first introducing them to the substance. Thirty-two participants (61.5%) entered a methamphetamine market through a second individual. These individuals are also predominantly friends and males. 106 recounts how his second introduction lead to his involvement in the market: I was in junior high in 7th grade and a lot of my best friends had older brothers who were seniors. [I got it from] one guy’s older brother. I just tried it once on the weekend, just like your Adderall. I’d always get shit for the weekend in high school. I know the difference now between anhydrous [ammonia] and the other stuff. I didn’t sleep for 3-4 days and this stuff you just do a little not to feel stupid… In 2011- a year and a half ago and the shit just fell out of the blue here in [city] and then one day everyone I knew who was selling heroin knew how to make it. It was the same people, me, S. [male, friend, cook], and 215, it was the same 8 or 9 of us that competed with each other. S. I think found out from somewhere. I was addicted to heroin and started hanging out with S. and seeing him do it. [106] 77 Anhydrous ammonia is a fertilizer found in tanks on farms that can be used to make methamphetamine. Due to the difficulty in stealing it from farms, the dangers of handling it, and the highly explosive nature of the substance, cooking with anhydrous has fallen out of style as cooks prefer the ease and safety of using Sudafed. After his friend “S.” acquired methamphetamine and the knowledge to make it, 106 followed suit. 225 purchased methamphetamine from a male friend a few years ago but fell out of touch after moving. When she and her husband, 115, befriended their new neighbor, they were introduced to the substance a second time but to a market for the first time: Participant: A friend came over one day and had some. Someone we haven’t talked to in forever. Just a friend that came over once in a while. Said ‘hey, look what I got.’ Where he had gotten it from was the guy that we knew that cooked. The guy he got it from was the guy getting it from Mexico. He was the first cook that we had dealt with. Didn’t know he was selling until introduction friend told us [the friend who initially introduced us to methamphetamine]. Interviewer: How did you get back into it the second time? Participant: In 2010 my grandma passed and we moved into her house. The guy who did yard work for us when we moved in, he lived down the street. He was one of the first 2 cooks. He just cooked it for himself mostly. [225] After purchasing methamphetamine from their neighbor, 225 and her husband began allowing him to borrow their vehicle for the cook to purchase components. 115 occasionally purchased boxes and sometimes watched the cooking process. A number of participants do not enter a methamphetamine market through the person who first introduces them to the substance. Many participants enter a market only after being reintroduced to the substance. Then, through using, they become involved in other roles. Length of time between first use and market involvement 78 Participants have varied histories of methamphetamine market involvement. As previously mentioned, some participants entered the market before they ever tried methamphetamine. Others began buying boxes or carrying out other tasks in a market the same or next day that they first consumed methamphetamine. Still other participants spent years using before entering a market. Unless otherwise noted, similar numbers of male and female participants fall under each category. The 39 participants (75%) who use methamphetamine then join a market have vastly different timelines for doing so. Excluded from this count are the four participants who entered markets before using methamphetamine, two participants who never used methamphetamine, and seven participants who primarily used methamphetamine. Seven participants (13.5%) first used methamphetamine and joined a market simultaneously. Sixteen percent of males (4) and eleven percent of females (3) discuss their instantaneous events. 201, a female cooks, describes her introduction to using and entering the market: “In 2002 someone at work was getting meth from Atlanta and bringing it to Michigan. I took some to sell, just .25 ounce at first, and sold it in 2 hours. I got the rest of the ounce and sold that. I got in for the money, but I was doing it too. I got hooked” [201]. While she intended to sell all of the methamphetamine trafficked in from Atlanta, 201 began using it instantaneously. Her entrance into a market was at the same time as her first time consuming the substance. Five participants (9.6%) joined a market within a few months of first using methamphetamine. One male succinctly explains: “About two months into the 2009 stint I got involved. I started getting boxes first then learned to cook” [109]. Within two months of using methamphetamine 109 was purchasing boxes and cooking. 214, a female cook working in a family based market, describes a similar timeline. Her daughters introduced her to 79 methamphetamine and then within a few months, when her daughters were out of jail, 214 began purchasing supplies and learning to cook. Five participants (9.6%) report waiting nearly a year after using methamphetamine before entering the market. 121 recounts the early days of his market involvement: That would be Cook 2, my best friend. It must have been in 1995. We were working the festivals. You had to work all weekend setting up and tearing down the festival sites. It started showing up there and we started using. People working at the festival had it. Mostly just during festival time because we worked all weekend, not much rest. We got tired of paying someone else for something I could do. In 1995 was when we all started working together. Cook 2 and I were working at a regular job. That was all night at a distributor. We’d get some working, we’d do it at work. In 1996 we started dabbling in making it a little bit. Not very often. Seeing how it was made, it was easy. Then we started doing it more. It’s not really any work. [121] 121 and his best friend first used it for the positive side effects back in 1995. Eventually 121’s best friend brought in his friend who was the source of the methamphetamine. This third man, referred to as Cook 1, taught 121 and his best friend, Cook 2 in the above account, to cook. They still continue to work together. Another ten percent (5) of participants joined a methamphetamine market between one and four years after first using. A few of these participants have legitimate reasons for the gap. 104 simply could not find methamphetamine in the Michigan city in which he relocated. Despite his initial dislike for it, 104 wanted but could not find more after his initial use. After roughly four years, his friend moved back to the area with methamphetamine and, most importantly, manufacturing knowledge. He also began buying boxes. 104’s lack of a supplier halted his market involvement. Another participant, a female, describes a different factor causing her delayed market entry- her age. 220 first used methamphetamine as a minor. A few years later, after turning 18, she began purchasing boxes and learned to cook: 80 I turned 18 and started buying boxes. I used steadily. It was mainly my friends that made it. After me and my friends learned how to do it we started doing it ourselves. I learned from a friend [male]. I would be around it cooking [friends cooked] but I didn’t start myself until about 2008. [220] 220’s status as a minor limited her methamphetamine market options. The ability to purchase boxes after turning 18 helped 220 enter a market, which then lead to her learning to cook. Twelve percent (6) of participants wait five to nine years after first using methamphetamine before joining a market. Similar numbers of men (4 or 16% of males) and women (2 or 7.4% of females) follow this timeline. Many older participants who reveal lengthy histories of methamphetamine use identify the infrequency with which it would appear in Michigan. This led many participants to seek out other drugs and prevented many from becoming involved in methamphetamine markets sooner. The following participants illustrate this point. 103 describes first using methamphetamine in 1993. He suspects at this point in time the methamphetamine was trafficked in from out of state. 103 began using methamphetamine again regularly seven years later: In 1993 I first used it. It was totally different, it was made different. I don’t know where it came from. My only guess, some of the later stuff came out of Mexico into CA. I only did it a few times. There were a few points were I’d pick it up and play with it then not do it again for a few years. I started using it full time more or less in 2000. I had a friend who knew how to do it. It was cheap and easy, it was easy to acquire the ingredients. In 2000 it was before, it was when Sudafed was out in the open and you could buy a case. They [police] didn’t know anything about it or what it was used for. Everything was really cheap because they didn’t have a clue. In about 2000 I started cooking. I was making and using. I was buying boxes and an observer until I learned [to cook]. He showed me how to do it and I just took off from there. I stayed pretty continuous. There were small periods, like maybe a year or two in the middle of that were I didn’t do it. But pretty much from 2000-2009 it was pretty steady. But not twice a week every week. [103] Upon his reintroduction, 103 learned to cook. Due to methamphetamine’s relatively new 81 presence in the state, obtaining ingredients and components was quite simple. 202 reveals a different reason for her lengthy gap between using and entering a market: she quit using for four years. After using again, her regular supplier was arrested and she fell into the role of helper for her child’s father: This was in 2002 or 2003, way before I ever cooked it. Introduced to using at a friend’s house. Involved for a while then quit for a few years, for at least 4 years (2003-2007). I didn’t use, wasn’t around it. 2009/2008 was when I first cooked it. I used it and cooked it hand in hand. There were 3-4 years between where I didn’t use and I wasn’t involved in meth at all. A guy I knew who was doing it [cooking and selling] went to prison [so I had no source]. In 2008- my daughter’s father was cooking and I became his right hand man. I spent about a year cooking with him. Then we broke up and I spent about 6 months in 2008 cooking on my own. [202] She was thrust into the role of helper due to her regular dealer’s arrest. Helping her child’s father, however, enabled 202 to learn to cook and she eventually formed her own market. Eleven participants (21.2%) reveal a ten or more year gap between first using methamphetamine and taking on a role within the market. This is once again primarily due to the difficulty in obtaining methamphetamine in Michigan in the 1990s. 124 recounts his history of methamphetamine use and market entry: 1977- So I could drink longer and stay up and keep going, weekend warrior. Got it from my friend. He said hey you need to try some of this. I started my love affair that day I tell you. I could get more stuff done, I could move faster. The euphoria of the buzz. By 1979 I started using it more often. In 1989 friend’s brother in law moved to Michigan. In the 90s was when we started to make it here because we wanted up. It wasn’t all of us that went out there at once. One or two or 3 of us would go out. We couldn’t always get off work, so it just went around, whoever was available. In 1990-1999 we were cooking anhydrous in Michigan. It ended when he got caught in 2001. Brother in law, the guy from California got caught. He got 13 years in prison and just got out. 82 I started making my own in 1999, just for me and my girlfriend, just for our own personal use. [124] 124 did not participate in any market activity for twelve years. He began trafficking methamphetamine out of California until his friend’s brother-in-law moved to the area with knowledge about manufacturing. 203 enters the methamphetamine market eleven years after first using it: I first tried it in 1998. One of my brothers was selling it. I went to his house to stay the weekend. I stayed up all weekend. I didn’t feel high but I didn’t go to sleep. I laid off for a few years and only used it here or there. I started again in 2009, 3 years ago. It was 4th of July weekend. My friend had some. I tried it. I had gotten sick of cocaine, I was paranoid and scared of everything and couldn’t function. I stayed up for 7 days off .25 gram. I felt wonderful. I ran from a lot of demons in my childhood, that’s why I started using drugs. It took fear away. It took pain away. I also had an addition from vicodin at the time. I didn’t detox off it. If I didn’t have vicodin I didn’t get sick. Then eventually it literally took everything away. Curiosity started killing the cat. I’m seeing my cooks that were cooking for us, they were getting lots of money and all kinds of dope and they’re not getting caught. I thought we can stay under the radar. It got appealing. I didn’t want to learn how to cook. My wife, I told her I didn’t want her to learn to cook. She learned all the measurements, she learned it, and we took off from there. [203] After using for so long, 203 realized manufacturing was quite simple and that she and her wife could easily form their own market and make, rather than spend, money on it. Participants who outline a ten plus year gap between using methamphetamine and entering a market generally attribute the gap to their inability to obtain methamphetamine for a lengthy time period in Michigan. Advancing in the market Participants transition from users to members of the market in a number of ways. The most common, and specifically relevant to cooks, is by simply being taught the manufacturing 83 process. Users are also told to perform certain tasks that elevate their position, similar to being recruited. Other users are around the cooking process and watch it, effectively learning it. Some participants ask the cooks for permission to perform tasks and are then granted market entry. A small number of participants use their unique access to ingredients as leverage to join a market. Only one participant admits paying a cook to teach her the process. Twenty-seven percent (14) of participants were taught to cook. This allowed them to increase their position within the market. Eight men (32% of males) and six women (22.2% of females) describe someone in the market taking the time to teach them the process. 117 describes a few different people showing him their recipe: “My dad and a few different people taught me around the same time. Once he taught me at first and then others taught me the different ways they do it” [117]. 227 grew tired of spending so much money purchasing methamphetamine and had her supplier teach her: “I got tired of spending money on it so the same guy taught me how to make it” [227]. Just over a quarter of participants are taught to cook by other cooks. This willingness to share knowledge may stem from the close relationships participants have with others in the market. Twenty-three percent (12) of participants were recruited by cooks or others in the market. These participants, primarily women (9 or 33.3%) were brought in by someone already in the market or they were asked to perform certain tasks, such as buying boxes. This is consistent with feminist theory in that men and women have different experiences within the market (Belknap, 2006; Messerschmidt, 1993). Two of the three men and two women were recruited to the role of cook. One man and three women were recruited as boxers. Two women were asked to be helpers for a cook. Lastly, two female users were recruited to purchase boxes. They did so very infrequently, thereby retaining their primary role as user. One boxer who never used 84 methamphetamine describes how a coworker, who is a methamphetamine cook and who never talked to her, outright asked 224 to buy Sudafed for her market: “I was working; I was serving drinks at a bar. One of the girls came up to me and asked if I ever bought Sudafed for recreational use. I said I just had allergies. She said do you want to buy it for us and she’d pay three times what it’s worth. And she explained it to me and I said yes” [224]. Another woman, who eventually learns to cook, was initially recruited to the role of dealer by her roommate: Back in 1994 I used to get it shipped in from Arizona through FedEx. That was once a week, pretty good quantity. I was selling it. I was living with a girl and her and her boyfriend were pretty big, both been busted, and they would go down there to get it and make it, use it, and she would mail it to me and I had to pay rent so I’d sell some of it. [226] 226’s roommate recruited her to sell the methamphetamine that she and her boyfriend went to Arizona to make. By meeting others in the market when he was just a user, 124 was simply asked by a dealer to accompany him on a trip to pick up methamphetamine: “I was 18 when I started and we knew each other years before that. I met the guy from California from one of the guys. He came out here and said ‘hey let’s take a trip and make some money’” [124]. Another common way for participants to learn to cook is to watch the cooking process and memorize the steps. Many cooks allow users to stay during the cooking process. As discussed in Chapter 4, because individuals are often hanging around many are thrust into the role of helper or watcher at the last minute. Whether or not they are fulfilling some other role of lookout or cleaning trash, some users are able to discretely watch the rather simple process and replicate it on their own. This is a slightly more common strategy for women (7 or 26.9% of females) than men (4 or 16% of males). One man explains: “I started cooking. I learned from just watching people that I knew that started cooking. Just watching. Then eventually I just developed my own way of doing it” [119]. 207 describes how boxers often wait during the 85 cooking process for their payment in methamphetamine. While waiting, they can often watch the cook: “I knew how to cook it. I watched every day. It was very easy to learn. I know what ingredients to put in, to burp it. One mess up, one cook messed up and burned himself over it. It blew up. If you were buying boxes you were in the whole cook process” [207]. Lastly, 203 explains how some cooks do not allow people to watch, but because cooking took place at her house, she was able to observe the process: “Our cook had a person [helper] who couldn’t be there and we got tired of waiting. I went with him and helped him out. Our cook had nowhere to go so we invited him over. That’s where we learned to cook. He couldn't tell us not to watch at our place” [203]. This is how her wife, 204, learned to cook. Still other users simply ask or volunteer for a role. Seven participants (13.5%) describe using this method to advance their status in the market. Three women (11.1%) use this strategy, two volunteer for the role of helper and one asks to learn to cook. Four men (16%) use this strategy. One man asks to cook, one volunteers to buy boxes, and two volunteer to be dealers. A male dealer succinctly explains: “When I got involved with him he started having me, I volunteered to go sell for him for a piece of it” [114]. Always looking for ways to make more money, 114 volunteers to be a dealer for his dealer. 113 describes how his brother told him about the profits in selling boxes. After a few years, 113 volunteers to start doing so: “My brother was the first one that told me about selling the boxes. In 2007 came home from prison and I kind of knew about it and being around my stepbrother’s sister. It wasn’t until 2009 when I started getting boxes [113]. Armed with the knowledge of being a boxer, 113 ultimately volunteers for the role in his brother’s market. 221 explains how she would ask to help: “Basically I would call her, she’d let me help out and cook and she would just do some with me” [221]. 221 knew about this cook through her social circle. When she decided she wanted 86 involved she called the cook and asked. Three participants (5.8%) leverage their access to boxes or components for access to the market. All three participants are boxers, though two worked as professional boxers. 101 describes how, years ago, he had access to anhydrous through his employment. Because the plant in which he was employed had large tanks of anhydrous ammonia (i.e. fertilizer), 101 could skim large amounts from work and sell it to cooks: In 1997 I started getting involved in making it. My stepson knew a friend who made it. He had already been busted for stealing anhydrous and I had it on hand. I made a deal with him for some. A friend from school- his nephew was good at making it. I made a deal, I traded anhydrous (gallon) for .5 ounce [methamphetamine]. People were breaking into the plant. [101] Previously just a user, 101 leveraged anhydrous for additional methamphetamine. 110, a professional boxer, explains his association with thieves who he hired to steal components. He then sold them to cooks: I’ve helped gather what they need to make it… The way I helped them was, I always knew people who were thieves. That’s how they got most of the materials. Buying leaves a trail so you steal the Coleman; you steal it so it doesn’t leave a trail to one person. I knew people who stole stuff for a living… There were probably two girls that stole things from the store and two guys who did burglaries to break into automotive and camping stores. They would get someone to back door Coleman fuel to the trash can. I just paid them for the stuff. You want to distance yourself from sketchy people. [110] By knowing thieves, 110 is able to negotiate a great deal of components for market membership. Surprisingly only one woman admits paying a cook to teach her the process. She says: “A friend and I paid a guy $1000 to show us how to cook” [201]. 201’s method to moving up in the market was to pay someone to teach her so, rather than continuing to purchase methamphetamine, she could manufacture her own supply. 87 Males doing gender To get at the different experiences and ways in which men and women do gender (West & Zimmerman, 1987) within methamphetamine markets, participants were asked questions about how they got others to do things for them, times when they had to act tough, or times, for women, when they acted stereotypically feminine to get treated in a better way. Relatively few men (6 or 24%) admit to taking advantage of their gender to get something from someone or to get someone to do something for them and just over half (15 or 60%) act tough to get their way. Five men (20%) both take advantage of being a man and act tough, diagrammed in Figure 6. Take advantage of being a man Over three quarters (19) of men say they do not take advantage of being a man to get someone to do something for them or to get something from someone. One cook explains that the special treatment he received was due to his role of cook rather than his status of male: “Not really, not because I was a man, just because I was a cook” [104]. The six men (24%) who do take advantage of their gender do so in different ways. Two men (8%), a cook and a dealer, use the power from their male status to threaten others. The cook explained to me, in a nonthreatening way: “I threatened people. I could threaten you. If you’re weaker than me I could threaten you” [116]. Another two male cooks (8%) regularly get favors from women. One cook would offer drugs in exchange for rides “I’d promise a girl drugs if she gave me a ride. Some favors or trade off” [112]. The other cook took advantage of the fact that women in the market would often offer favors, sometimes sexual, for methamphetamine. He came to expect favors from women 88 and regularly used them: “Yeah, with women. Yeah. They would offer anything. That came with it” [124]. Lastly, two men (8%), one a cook and the other a professional boxer, discuss exploiting others. The cook describes the benefits that came from his size and his helper viewing him as a role model: “As far as taking advantage of- the little guy who was my helper didn’t have much growing up. I was a role model and he wanted to be just like me and I could take advantage of that. I never had to strong arm anyone, but I am a big guy” [105]. Because 105’s helper looked up to him, 105 could exploit him by sending him on errands and using his help while cooking. Act tough Forty percent (10) of men indicate that they do not need to act tough while performing their roles in methamphetamine markets. One cook explains that treating his customers well ensures their return business, which is a goal among cooks: No, because I’m, I sell stuff all the time, phones, computers, I’m trying to stay away from my other life. I have people come to me all the time to sell things. I’m not trying to get one over on you, I’m trying to keep customers so I can always make money. Some people just try to get rich right now and make as much money as possible right now… There’s been times when people haven’t paid but all you gotta do is cut them off and they lose. You don’t lose. They don’t pay one time and they’re done. [121] The men who do not act tough in the markets are a mix of participants. Two are involved in family based markets and two are involved in large markets. Only two are hierarchically structured. Six are cooks, two are users, one is a dealer, and one is a boxer. Fifteen men (60%) do claim they act tough or are tough while involved in their methamphetamine market. Eight are cooks while the rest are a mixture of boxers, users, and dealers. Men who act tough report belonging to a variety of different market types- seven belong to friend based markets, three to family based markets, and five indicate involvement in both 89 friend and family based markets. Interestingly, men who admit acting tough are no more likely to belong to hierarchically based markets (7 or 28%) than non-hierarchically based markets (8 or 32%). Men report acting tough in a few ways: five men are violent, five men are verbally aggressive, and four men use other tactics. Five men (20%), and only one cook, use violence to establish control within methamphetamine markets. The one cook explains: I would use violence to not get taken advantage of and to show who’s in charge. There was different ways of doing it. Sometimes it was having to fight with them or sometimes it was to cut them off. When you had the power it was easier to control the situation because you were in the power spot. If the shoe was on the other foot I wouldn’t be coming at me because I’m “the man.” [124] 124 describes the power associated with the cook, something few others talk about, and how violence is often needed to remind others that the cook is in control. Another cook admits regularly carrying weapons and engaging in stereotypically masculine behavior: “Hell yeah. Daily. I carried a club, sometimes a gun. I always had knives and brass knuckles and stuff like that” [116]. Lastly, a professional boxer reveals getting violent after someone snitches: I tried to scare people that I was not someone to mess with. If I went to jail for something they did I would hurt them. That’s the only tough act I had. Don’t give me up. I was successful. What could they do? This guy makes $65k a year and smoke meth at night and uses prostitutes. [110] He would physically punish individuals who he knew gave his name to police. He believed this acts as a deterrent to prevent others from snitching. Five men (20%), all cooks, resort to verbally aggressive threats to avoid others taking advantage of them or to establish power within their role. 117 describes speaking up to prevent getting taken advantage of by users or boxers: “Yeah, definitely. It just seemed like the thing to do. You can’t let people walk all over you when they know you have something. You have to 90 be or you get walked on. I would just, nothing really outrageous, just speak what I thought pretty much” [117]. 120, a cook who was also a professional boxer, describes how he would physically change his demeanor to be tough: Yeah. Just to intimidate people better when I was buying it to make sure they didn’t short me and I’d do it the opposite to short them. Like I knew I had a small amount and it wasn’t worth as much as I wanted so I’d act hard to get away with it. I’d just change my attitude, talk deeper, not talk nice. Talk hard. [120] Men report that verbally aggressive behavior is effective in getting them what they want and preventing others from taking advantage of them or their product. Four men (16%) detail varied methods of acting tough. A boxer resorts to a serious demeanor so that others will respect him: “I don’t know, if you, if you, like, I really can’t explain it. You just don’t want anyone running over you or thinking they can get over you in any way. Just being myself I guess. Just serious all the time” [125]. A user demands respect and refuses to be overcharged for methamphetamine by refusing to be bullied. He is unyielding to negotiation or compromise and demands respect: No, I just told them straight up I’m not going to do what I don’t want to do and you’re not going to force me. If they didn’t respect my decision I didn’t associate with them. If they didn’t like the way I was or my opinions I wasn’t going to let them bully or force me into anything. Show them respect and they show you respect. [123] Similarly, if 101, a boxer, was not happy with his compensation for boxes or components he would refuse to make the transaction or even call the police: “I was a prick. I’d withhold something from them, tell them to get off my property, call the cops” [101]. He even admits to pouring ingredients down the drain to “get back at” his family members who did not appreciate him or give him the respect he felt he deserves. Lastly, one cook demanded respect by having enforcers: “Not me. I had other people do that. I had people, I guess you could call them enforcement types. I come from a gang background” [119]. This way he did not have to be 91 tough or aggressive but had men to physically threaten or hurt those who needed punished. Men act tough in a number of ways, with only a small proportion of participants using physical violence to achieve their ends. Females doing gender Females were asked about times when they act stereotypically feminine or times when they act tough when dealing with others in methamphetamine markets. Roughly half of women (13 or 48.1%) report that they do not take advantage of being a woman to get people to do things for them or to get things, like extra components or methamphetamine. Even more surprising is that only five women (18.5%) indicate that they act stereotypically feminine to get favors or better treatment from others in the market. Conversely, over half of women (14 or 51.9%) explain that they act tough in the market to improve the way they are treated by others. Four women (14.8%) indicate taking advantage of being a woman, acting tough, and acting feminine to better their treatment in methamphetamine markets, as seen in Figure 7. Take advantage of being a woman Just over half of the women interviewed (14 or 51.9%) admit to taking advantage of being a woman to get others to do things for them or to get things from others. The primary way to accomplish this is by flirting, but women also admit to exploiting men’s interest in them, as well as abusing the trust men often have for women. Nine women (33.3%) admit flirting with men as a means to get something, usually methamphetamine. One woman reveals that even though she is a cook and has access to making her own supply, she would flirt with male cooks to get methamphetamine for herself: “Yes, I would always I guess flirt with dope cooks. I would do it to get high because I knew they 92 thought I was pretty” [212]. A user discloses how she would flirt with cooks and make them think she was interested in them so they would give her free methamphetamine: Participant: Flirt. Making guys think you’re interested for dope. I’m a natural flirt. Interviewer: What would you get? Participant: More drugs. We’d just sit around and get high. I’d make them feel welcome in my home and they’d get me high. I always had a nice home and comfortable place to be at. They’d come over and get loaded. [217] By making the male cooks think she was interested in them and feel welcome in her home, they would treat her well and give her methamphetamine. Three women (11.1%) rely on the fact that men are more willing to help or perform favors for women, especially if the women are attractive. One cook describes how men prefer to deal with her over her boyfriend and are willing to take more risk to get her the components she needs: “People do more for me than for my boyfriend, especially guys. They take more risk to get ingredients. People would rather deal with me than my boyfriend” [201]. 222 initially got involved in the market as a boxer but quickly began dating the cook, who then, to protect her, limits her involvement to only using methamphetamine. She stresses that she was not using him, but would frequently have him take her shopping: “Yeah. Like just T would ask me what I want and I would tell him. I guess my looks and my being so young and him being older and he liked me so I used it to my advantage. I wasn’t using him, I actually liked him” [222]. She further admits that he would often give her large sums of money and have his helper, another man, begrudgingly take her shopping. Women in the methamphetamine markets know when men are interested in them and how to use that to their advantage. Lastly, one woman (3.7%) explains that men are more trusting of women and thus more likely to make trades for methamphetamine rather than selling it outright. 207, a helper, 93 confesses: Yeah. In any drug addiction I have. You do this for me and I’ll do this for you. I’ll sleep with you if you get me this. I’ll get you a few boxes if you get me some dope. One time I had heroin and I wanted meth, so I traded. Cooks respond better to women trading than men. Unless they were good friends with one of their guy friends. [207] While many women take advantage of men in the sense that they are getting something for nothing, 207 is unusual in that she trades other drugs or sex for methamphetamine. Act feminine A majority of women (22 or 81.5%) said that they do not act feminine to be treated better or to get favors or other special treatment. One woman, 222, the helper turned cook’s girlfriend, explains why acting feminine would not benefit her and why the men around her, her cook boyfriend and his helper, would not believe the act: Nope. If I were to act more like a woman I’d get called a baby. It wouldn’t even work, they’d be like ‘stop putting that act on and acting all prissy we know you ain’t even like that.’ Fair enough. When you hang around a bunch of skin heads you got to be a toughy. I always jumped bikes and hung around Flint and Lansing and Detroit, I’m kind of used to it. [222] Other women further explain that kind of behavior is not conducive to drug market business. People may not trust a flirty, flighty woman. Very few women (5 or 18.5%) admit to acting stereotypically feminine to obtain favors or better treatment from others in the market. Four of these women identify their markets as hierarchically structured. Four women are cooks, but only three women are cooks in hierarchically structured markets, which is interesting because they identify themselves as in charge and would not seemingly have to use their gender to negotiate for better treatment. Of the five women who do admit to acting more feminine to get favors and goods from others, three flirt, one cries, and one acts innocent. 94 Despite nine women indicating that they take advantage of being a woman by flirting to get things from people or to get people to do things for them, only four of those women to acting more feminine for such treatment. Three of these women (11.1%) again mention flirting as a way to manipulate men. 212, a cook in a family based market, frankly discusses misleading men in other markets for free drugs: “Yeah basically just making guys think you’re interested in them but you’re not, you’re just trying to get high” [212]. 214, 212’s mother, talks about flirting with men and women to get drugs, drinks, or anything: Flirted. I never went straight to the sex thing, but if I wanted it now then yeah. It worked for males or females. [Flirt] just to get your way. Other markets, at the bar. You can get a drunk person to do just about anything, too. You thrive on the weak. You can tell when a person’s weak and take advantage of them. Elders or drunk, which is sickening. [214] By making men, or in some cases women, believe that women are interested in them, the women can obtain free methamphetamine or other components. One (3.7%) woman acts more feminine by crying to get her way. She admits crying to her boyfriend or other men to get drugs or material goods: “I might cry to get my way. [Who would you do this to?] Probably my boyfriend. Maybe other men, but not women” [216]. Lastly, one woman (3.7%) puts on a sweet, innocent act with police to try and convince them that she is not involved in methamphetamine markets. She reveals: Participant: I would act more feminine with cops. Interviewer: How would you do that? Participant: The way I talk, I talk to police differently. With police I’m more good girl ‘no officer, I don’t know what you’re talking about’ [in a sweet voice] [201]. 201 would be more feminine by acting sweet and innocent for police in hopes that they would not search her vehicle or make an arrest. Act tough 95 Just over half of women (14 or 51.9%) admit to acting tough to get treated better by other market members. Seven (25.9%) of these women are cooks, five (18.5%) are users, one (3.7%) is a boxer, and one (3.7%) is a helper. Women who act tough are disproportionately involved in friend based networks (11 or 40.7%) as opposed to family based networks (3 or 11.1%). These women also tend to be in hierarchically structured markets (8 or 29.6%) more than nonhierarchically structured markets (6 or 22.2%). Only four women (14.8%) report both acting more stereotypically feminine to get things and acting tough to get treated better, as depicted in Figure 7. Women accomplish this by copping an attitude, using violence, and having the knowledge they need for the role in which they work. Ten women (37%) indicate they act tough by adopting a negative attitude. Women discuss “not taking crap” from others and being more assertive than normal. One user explains: Participant: Yeah, you can’t be soft, absolutely. You have to let a person know what you stand for or you’ll fall for anything. Interviewer: How would you do that? Participant: I was very mouthy but I’m real about it. I don’t bite my tongue. My attitude and language change. In my normal life I don’t have to be like that. It’s a role. [208] Using stronger language and speaking one’s mind is a way to act tough around others. A cook describes her assertiveness when acting tough: “Yeah, you gotta do that. You would have to be more blunt, not take what they give up but make them give you what you wanted plus some for trying to trick you” [214]. Another cook describes herself as mean while being tough: “Not to get treated better, but I acted tough to not get screwed, to not get run over. I just acted mean, I don’t put up with crap” [202]. When acting tough, women change their attitude to be coarser and more assertive. A small number of female users and helpers (3 or 11.1%) use violence to be tough. 203, 96 a helper, admits regularly using physical violence to establish respect among others in methamphetamine markets: Participant: Yeah, people thought because we were women they could rip us off. Interviewer: How did you act tough? Participant: 2x4s to their knees and holding a rock because our punch wouldn’t be as forceful. Just because we’re females doesn’t mean you can rip us off. [203] Similarly, 217, who used to enjoy the company of other users, resorts to physical violence when she wants them to leave her home: Oh my god, I got so sick of being the man of the house. I was a single woman on my own. At the end I had to become a monster on my own. I was running around with a machete chasing them. ‘I don’t want anymore! Go away!’ I went from flirty to chasing them off. It just backfired on me. I couldn’t get rid of them. They were like cockroaches, they wouldn’t leave me alone. [217] Women who feel disrespected or not taken seriously resort to physical violence against other methamphetamine involved individuals. Lastly, one cook indicates that having the proper knowledge about your methamphetamine is the best way to be tough and prevent someone taking advantage. She explains that she cannot act like a stereotypical female or be perceived as a user or others will treat her as such, which she implies is negatively: “Yeah, I had to know what I was talking about. If you act dingy or strung out that’s how they’ll treat you” [212]. By being knowledgeable about her product 212 is respected among others. Agency Participants exercise agency through the level of control they feel they have in the market as well as their ability to rebel against and bargain with others in the market. Control 97 A vast majority of participants (40 or 76.9%), 76% (19) of men and 77.8% (21) of women, feel control over the roles they fill and their level of involvement in the methamphetamine market. Just over half (23 or 57.5% of those who feel control) of those participants are cooks suggesting that not just individuals in positions of power feel control over their involvement. Similarly, just over half of participants (22 or 55%) who feel control over their market involvement are members of a hierarchically structured market. Only a third of participants (14 or 35%) who indicate control over their involvement are cooks with membership in a hierarchically structured market, indicating that there are many individuals who are not cooks who still feel control in hierarchically structured markets. Even in markets where cooks are in control, other members still feel that they exercise agency. A cook working with friends in a non-hierarchically structured market describes the money as the motive for his involvement. Thus, when he does not feel like cooking or when the weather is bad he can simply not do it: Yeah, I had all the control. The weather had most of the control. If it was cold or going to rain I wasn’t going to do it. I didn’t have to have it. I wasn’t going to freeze my ass off. I didn’t do it for the habit, just for the money. So at the time if I had money it was just an inconvenience in one way shape or form I’d say screw it and go to work and it didn’t bother me. If the weather was OK I’d do it just in case someone wanted it I would have it. [106] 106 has agency in his market with his friends and can easily opt in or out of manufacturing when it suits his needs. A female cook similarly indicates that she always felt in control of her involvement: “I felt in control. I never felt out of control, but I thought other people were out of control” [202]. 202 cooks in a friend based network. She explains that if she does not feel right about cooking in a particular spot or at a particular time, she is able to say no and exclude herself from the market activity. 98 108, a dealer who sold methamphetamine for his friends, feels complete control over his time in the market. He has control over how much he sold, how often he associates with the cooks, and the length of time he works as a dealer: “I had full control. If I wanted to leave I could just stop. I did after a while. I guess it was more selling to their people. I sold enough to get high but not make a lot of money. I think they made a lot of money. They always had money” [108]. He was in control over the extent of his involvement in the market and ultimately exerted his agency by paying the cooks what he owed them and leaving the market. He reveals that the cooks tell him he is welcome back anytime but he chooses to decline further involvement. Members in lower levels of market involvement also reveal having control over their actions. 125 is a boxer who sometimes employs others to help him get Sudafed. He is not quite a professional boxer as the scale of his operation is relatively small. He sells Sudafed to markets consisting of both friends and family and indicates that while he has no control over the boxers he sometimes employs, he has complete control over his involvement: “I don’t know. Over them getting me boxes, I don’t know. I really don’t know. I don’t feel like I had control over them. I had control over my little business, I guess. I had control over how involved I wanted to be and didn’t want to be” [125]. Lastly, a user reveals how she and her husband remain in control over their occasional use while living near the cook from whom they purchase methamphetamine and who they permit to use their car to run errands: They would call to see if we needed any. They liked us so we were the first ones they called. They got the hint that we didn’t do it very often. They told us to call if we ever needed anything… I refused to get boxes. That’s about it. I let him use my car when he needed it anytime. Unless I needed it, but they weren’t mad about it, they understood. [225] 99 225 and her husband simply told the cook when they did not want to purchase any, which was most of the time. She also set limits on his use of her vehicle when they needed it for personal use. She describes the cooks as very understanding and never forcing or coercing her into buying more methamphetamine or letting them use her vehicle. In opposition to many other drug markets (Jacobs & Miller, 1998a; Jenkot, 2011; Maher, 1997; Morgan & Joe, 1996), participants involved in the lower levels of methamphetamine markets, as well as those who identify only as users, feel control over their involvement and exercise their agency when making decisions. Rebel A number of participants (36 or 69.2%) exercise agency by rebelling in their methamphetamine market role. Nineteen men (76% of men) and seventeen women (63% of women) resist their traditional transactions when their needs are not being met. 112, a cook in a hierarchically structured friend based network, often refuses to sell to customers, especially couples, who have been high or awake too long. Yeah. Like if I knew there was a guy and girl that was arguing and I thought it was because they were up too many days I would refuse to sell to them until they got some sleep. It was more of a concern if they got into a domestic violence situation and what they had going on they’d have me involved. Women that were on the drug seemed to be very vindictive and revengeful and willing to give up names. [112] It is ultimately self-serving as he worries that, if caught by police, they will tell police his name. By refusing to carry out business like usual, he protects himself from law enforcement. Another cook rebels against his customers by refusing to sell to them any time they make him angry: “Heck yeah. I refused to sell it to people. It could be anything- they made me mad, did something I didn’t like… If you piss me off you aren’t getting anything from me. Not until I wasn’t mad anymore” [116]. This was less about protecting himself and more so to exert control 100 over others in his market. 220, a cook in a family based market, frequently uses other people’s residences at cooking locations. They would get a small amount of methamphetamine as compensation. When they would try to bargain for a larger amount 220 refuses to negotiate and simply refuses to cook in that spot: Participant: Yeah. I would refuse to go to this person’s house unless they would take this much [dope]. Or I didn’t want to pay them as much as they wanted. If we went to someone else’s house to do it or something, they would tell us what they wanted and we would say I’m not going to do it unless, I can only pay you this much. Interviewer: Did you always get your way? Participant: Yeah. [220] 220 reports that the users always take what she offers for compensation. Others rebel against cooking. One cook simply refuses to cook if his partners choose a location that he does not like: “But if I didn’t want to cook in a certain place I would stay home” [107]. There is no possibility of compliance until the group agrees to cook in a location approved by 107. Similarly, 212 refuses to cook if she feels the situation is not ideal. This mistrust is to protect herself from snitches: “Sometimes I refused to cook if the place wasn’t right or if I didn’t like the people they were with or if I felt they couldn’t be trusted. I guess that’s a part of being paranoid. It worked, I would go to where I wanted to go” [212]. Lastly, 226 would resist continue cooking when she felt her partner and husband spent too much time manufacturing. He would cook in the vehicle while she drove it around or they would stop near the water and work together. She would eventually tire of the constant cooking and refuse to assist her husband: “Yeah. I refused to drive. I would stop the car and get out walk away. ‘I’m done I don’t want to do it anymore. I want to have fun!’ He’d say we have to finish. I’d stop and grab my pole out of the car and start fishing” [226]. By literally walking away from the process and engaging in nonmarket related activities, 226 exercises agency over her husband. 101 Men and women in methamphetamine markets have agency to refuse to perform their roles for any reason they choose. This is, however, disproportionately found in cooks over helpers, boxers, and dealers. Bargain Just over half of participants (28 or 53.8%) exercise agency by bargaining with others in their market. Over twice as many men (19 or 76%) report bargaining than women (9 or 33.3%). A few participants reveal that they did not negotiate for more compensation or methamphetamine not because they were afraid or felt oppressed but because they either felt like they were already treated well or it simply did not occur to them to ask for more. A boxer admits: “No, I just thought it was so simple. It was just ridiculously easy money. It never occurred to me to negotiate more money” [224]. 123, a user who sometimes ran errands for the cooks explains: “No. It didn’t bother me. If they asked me to go run they gave me a couple bucks and I didn’t ask for it and I just did it to be nice so they didn’t have to leave their process of what they were doing” [123]. He appreciates the money they do give him and is happy to keep the cook from having to stop the cooking process. One helper never feels like she has to negotiate for more payment or drugs in return for her role in the market: “I didn’t have to, they never did me wrong on that. I’d always get my cut, I’d always get what I wanted” [207]. So while a great deal of participants, especially women, indicate that they have never negotiated for better treatment or more compensation, for some it is because they are content with the way they are already treated. Participants who discuss negotiating (28 or 53.8%) admit to bargaining for a variety of things: components, money, boxes, methamphetamine, and even food. A male cook admits to negotiating the trade of methamphetamine for components, electronics, and even a car: “Yeah. 102 For any component. I’d barter for electronics. I traded dope for a car before. I usually was giving dope up for something: radios, CD players, cell phones, car, I mean for sure” [105]. This works to his advantage, however, as the electronics for which he trades are certainly worth more than even a $100 gram of methamphetamine. Another cook describes trading methamphetamine for services, such as car parts or maintenance or even sexual services: “Barter system, oh yeah. We need a car fixed or something like that we bartered. Drugs or money. You would be amazed at what people will trade or try to give you for just a little. Stereos, tires, their car. Their wives, honestly” [124]. 124 admits to always being open to a good trade as he could obtain goods and services that are worth much more than the methamphetamine he is selling. 110, a professional boxer, continuously negotiates with his users for ingredients and dealers for methamphetamine. He admits to being very effective in negotiating in his favor: Participant: Every time you buy something you’re always trying to get more for less. I was good, successful at that. It was just the dealer I was working with. I’m already cheating these people, so getting it for less, so I guess I was cheating them harder than others. I wasn’t a very nice man. Interviewer: How much did you pay them? Participant: Less than 10 cents to the dollar depending on what they bought. Ephedrine or something hard to get, that was more, but not much more. These people are desperate. It was even cheaper if you traded product. [110] 110 explains that to be an effective professional boxer, he must be effective at negotiating the best deal for components and methamphetamine. Bargaining earned him the largest profits. 208, a user who does not indicate taking advantage of her gender to get favors and special treatment, admits to using her occasional role as a boxer to negotiate for more methamphetamine or other goods. She explains: Dope. I’d negotiate for more of what I was doing. Or so I could pass it off to my friend if it wasn’t for me… I’d be like I’m not doing that for that, you better give me _____. 103 That’s what I needed, I need cigarettes, I need gas in my car… Yeah, I’m manipulative. I’d say forget it then. I knew I would up the ante if I was indispensable. I was more submissive when I started. I don’t need this, they need me. If it’s to get high you’ll do just about anything. [208] Lastly, a female cook describes negotiating for food and additional drugs after being pimped out by her father. In a story more common in cocaine markets than methamphetamine markets, 218’s father raped her and rarely fed her. As a reaction, she would ask the wealthy users who bought from them to bring her food when they came to pick up their drugs. She also bargained for some extra methamphetamine from the man her father sent her to have sex as payment for an outstanding debt: Yeah. Usually for drugs, food. I was so damn hungry all the time- he never fed me… I’d call them [users] and say it’s done and can you bring me a happy meal on the way and they’d bring me food… He [dad] had a debt that he owed one of the people that helped us buy stuff. He owed them $200 and dad sent me in there to sleep with him and he gave me some dope. I knew he was going to make me do it anyways so I might as well do it and get some dope. [218] Despite being treated terribly by her father, she negotiates with others around her for food and drugs so she can survive. While just over half of participants admit to negotiating within their market, men bargain more than women and disproportionately for components and material items to make a sale. Women disproportionately negotiate for methamphetamine, or in 218’s case, to obtain food so she can survive. Over one third of participants (20 or 38.5%) reveal feeling a great deal of control over their involvement, rebelling against their role, and bargaining to get something from others in the market. These participants are almost exclusively cooks indicating that cooks exercise greater levels of agency due to their elevated status (see Figure 8). Although women say they can do what they want, these findings show they have less power than men and that they exert less power in negotiations and bargaining. 104 Sex trade Trading sex for drugs is very common in cocaine and heroin markets (Griffin & Rodriguez, 2011; Jacobs & Miller, 1998a; Jenkot, 2011; Maher, 1997). Research tells us little about its occurrence in methamphetamine markets, as only one study alludes to its presence (Jenkot, 2011). Trading sex for methamphetamine was a topic that stemmed from grounded theory analysis in the present study. While not initially in the interview, it was added in after a participant mentioned it. Because of this, only 35 participants (67%) were asked about their knowledge of the sex trade in methamphetamine markets. Seventeen percent of participants asked about the sex for methamphetamine trade (four men and two women) did not know of its presence. One male cook in a large market explains that the nature of methamphetamine markets discourages that type of behavior: Interviewer: It’s very common in other drug markets for women to trade sex for drugs. Did any women you know ever trade sex for money or meth? Participant: Not so much. I can’t say that it hasn’t or doesn’t happen, but it wasn’t like the crack market. It’s a different addiction. It’s usually a network of friends, at least for me in my area. We were from small farm town communities. We all grew up as friends. There wasn’t quite the market for that. [103] While 103 raises valid points about methamphetamine markets disproportionately consisting of friends from small towns, a vast majority of participants (29 or 82.9%) are aware of the sex for methamphetamine trade. Similar numbers of men (15 or 78.9% of men) and women 14 or 87.5%) admit to either knowing about the sex for methamphetamine trade or being involved in it. 101 admits to trading methamphetamine for sex: “There were people who hung around. Dope whores. They did favors for drugs, sexual favors. I had to make amends with my ex-wife with that. I done it a couple times” [101]. 116, a cook, divulges his experience with a “dope whore.” He explains 105 that the exchange is generally understood and rarely spoken: Everything. Other drugs, it was my way of life. The cash was first and foremost. I’d get everything from a to z. Sex and everything else. Meth whores, one time I was having sex with a girl and she flat out said you’re giving me dope, right? That only happened once, right? No big deal. You knew what it was all the time anyway. It was pretty much an unspoken understanding. You know when you ain’t cooking they’re two houses down the road at the next cook’s house doing the same thing… It’s very prevalent, whether it’s spoken or not. Everyone knows. [116] 116 normalizes the behavior within the market with the frequency with which it happens. 201, a female cook, describes how commonplace dope whores can be and the difficulty in getting them to leave a market: Dope whores- they would be with anyone to get high. They’d do anything you wanted. They were real young, sleeping with 40 year old men to get high. They were around a lot. They come around because someone brings them over, then the next thing you know they’re hanging out all the time. [201] She reveals how the sex for methamphetamine trade is not a singular exchange, but that women will physically stay near or at the residence of a cook to continually exchange sex for more drugs. Despite their presence around cook sites, dope whores often evade arrest. 203, a helper who refers to them as “sack chasers,” explains their strategy: You trade everything for it. Your soul. Some women trade their bodies. But that don’t happen often. Well I guess it does. We call them sack chasers. Whoever’s got the best dope they’ll hook up with that guy… Sack chasers- they weren’t sleeping with them for drugs, they just wanted to be involved. They wouldn’t leave, they stayed around. When a cook goes to prison they move on to the next one. One girl has been through 6 cooks, she’s been in every raid and never served time. She tells on people- who gets raided and never gets in trouble? [203] Instead of trading sex with a cook once for methamphetamine, sack chasers or dope whores will often attach themselves to a cook and “date” them until their arrest. After cooperating with police and trading names for their freedom, these women are safe to move on to the next cook to continue trading sex for methamphetamine. 106 Trading sex for methamphetamine is common but takes a slightly different form from the sex trade in other drug markets. The methamphetamine sex trade is less random and casual as women often strategically attach themselves to a cook until his arrest, when they usually move on to one of his former associates. This aspect, however, is one commonality methamphetamine markets have to other drug markets. Conclusion In this chapter I outlined the different conduits through which men and women are introduced to methamphetamine. Consistent with literature, most men are introduced through male friends and many women are introduced through boyfriends, male family members, and male friends. However, this research is unique in that I find a small but substantial number of participants who reveal introduction through female friends, female family members, and girlfriends. Also unique to this study is the inclusion of two market members who have never used methamphetamine. Also examined are the ways through which men and women are introduced to methamphetamine markets. A few participants reveal involvement in a market before actually using methamphetamine. A small number of participants reveal being introduced to the market through the person who first introduced them to methamphetamine. The majority identify a second individual who reintroduces them to methamphetamine and assists their market entrance. The length of time between first using methamphetamine and entering a market to assist in the manufacturing process is highly varied across participants. Some individuals try the drug and enter the market simultaneously while others have a few decades separation between the two events. A vast majority of participants advance roles by being taught to cook, taking advantage of opportunities, such as watching the process while someone else is cooking, and being recruited by current market members to carry out a task. 107 Next, this chapter explores the ways in which men and women use gender to accomplish their goals. Well over half (16 or 64%) of men act tough or take advantage of being a man to get people to perform tasks or do certain things. Fewer women (10 or 37%) admit to using stereotypical tactics such as acting feminine or taking advantage of being a woman to get something from someone or to get someone to perform a particular task. Similar to other drug markets, however, is the finding that a quarter of women (7) act tough to improve the way they are treated within the market. Even more interesting is the fact that four women act both feminine and tough in different situations to best manipulate others in the market. Participants’ agency is examined through discussions about the level of control they feel over their role within the market, as well as their ability to rebel against and bargain with others in the market. Participants overwhelmingly feel in control of their market involvement, regardless of their role or the hierarchical structure of their market. Even users exert agency, for example over how often and from whom they purchase methamphetamine and the frequency with which they allow cooks to borrow their vehicle. Similar numbers of men and women indicate having control over their role and involvement and rebelling against others in the market. However, over twice as many men than women admit bargaining with others in the market. Further, the twenty participants who exert agency in all three ways, having control over their role, rebelling against their role, and bargaining with others in the market, are almost exclusively cooks. Half of them describe the markets in which they work as hierarchically structured, which suggests that, ultimately, members of any position and in any market type exercise agency while involved in methamphetamine markets. However, cooks in hierarchically structured markets report greater levels of agency than members holding other roles and in more 108 equitable markets. Lastly, the act of trading sex for methamphetamine was examined. A vast majority of participants either know of it occurring or have engaged in the act themselves. 109 CHAPTER 6: AVOIDING ARREST This chapter explores the different strategies men and women use to avoid law enforcement during the different stages of methamphetamine production and sale. It also examines the gendered strategies participants believe each sex can use to prevent arrest. Lastly, this chapter investigates the situations when participants were arrested to determine if the arrests predominately occur in the absence of arrest avoidance strategies. Avoid arrest Individuals reveal many strategies to avoid detection by law enforcement. Participants reported using anywhere from zero to 16 strategies to avoid law enforcement (n=52, x=6.0, sd=3.4). Men, on average, report using more strategies (n=25, x=6.32, sd=3.8) than women (n=27, x=5.7, sd=3.1). Two participants (3.8%), one man and one woman, did not use any particular strategies to avoid law enforcement. One individual, 118, never used methamphetamine and would simply drive his brother and dad, both cooks, to stores for them to get components. The other, 211, was only involved in the role as helper. Inconsistent with feminist theory (Belknap, 2006; Messerschmidt, 1993), men and women use very similar strategies to avoid law enforcement contact. The few gender differences that exist are noted below. Getting ingredients The aspect of manufacturing under which participants take the most precaution to avoid detection is in obtaining components. Common ways to obtain ingredients without alerting law enforcement are using boxers, smurfing, staying at the purchasing limit, buying components individually, and normalizing component purchases with other groceries or household items. 110 Fifty-five percent of men (12 of 22) and 66.7 of women (16 of 24) involved in the role of getting ingredients use law enforcement avoidance strategies during that activity. The most common strategy under the obtaining components category is using other people to buy the highly regulated Sudafed boxes. Sixteen participants (30.8%) (7 or 13.5% males and 9 or 17.3% female) discuss using boxers so they do not have to register their name for the purchase. A male cook involved in a friend based market says: “Have other people getting the boxes to sign their name. There’s nothing worse than a cook getting his own boxes, having your ID taken” [121]. He did, however, occasionally purchase boxes. 218, a female cook in business with her father, reveals that once she started cooking she stopped purchasing boxes. As cooks, neither she nor her father wanted their names on the registry: We would “use different gophers- we’d always use different people. You use the same people all the time you’re screwed with the registry. We, me and dad, never bought the stuff” [218]. Paying other people to purchase the boxes is an effective way to remain undetected. Another discrete method participants use to obtain boxes is smurfing (Bovett, 2006; Department of Justice, 2009; Deutch, 2011; Nemes, 2010; Rigdon, 2012; VanderWaal et al., 2008). Nine (17.3%) individuals (3 or 5.8% male and 6 or 11.5% female) discuss alternating stores and towns in which they purchase Sudafed. Because not all registries are online, smurfing allows individuals to go over the three boxes a month limit. A female helper talks about travelling to different cities to get boxes: I “went out of town to get boxes. Been to Kalamazoo; one time we even went to Detroit to get boxes” [207]. Another woman, who only worked as a boxer, explains how being recognized by pharmacists prompted her to change stores: Just because it’s obviously not for personal use and I don’t need that much Sudafed. I think I knew in my head something wasn’t right so I didn’t want a pharmacist to ask me 111 any questions. If I went in on a Tuesday and went back on a Thursday and the same pharmacist was working I didn’t buy any. I went to a different store. [224] 224 said she did not know what the boxes were for when she was buying them, but she still knew better than to frequent the same pharmacies repeatedly. While many participants discuss ways in which they circumvent the Sudafed limitations, some participants (6 or 11.5%) simply abided by the limitations and bought the small, legally acceptable numbers of Sudafed each month. One man (1.9%) and five women (9.6%) discuss this strategy. A male cook in a large market describes his practice: “Play it safe. Don’t buy more of anything. You don’t buy more boxes than what you’re supposed to. I know lots of people that didn’t stick to that theory” [103]. 208. A user who occasionally purchased boxes, describes the paranoia she felt when going over the limit: Once I got to my limit and get burned out I stopped buying boxes. I was thinking, God, they’re keeping track of how much I’m buying and where I am and I’m probably in a database somewhere. They’re going to come and knock on my door and be like ok, miss so and so, we know you’re doing this, blah blah blah… [208] For some participants, abiding by the Sudafed limits is a valid strategy to avoid law enforcement. Other strategies revolve around buying other methamphetamine components, such as Coleman fuel, iodine, batteries, and coffee filters. In order to remain inconspicuous in stores, six participants (11.5%) are careful to purchase one component at a time. Four men (7.7%) and two women (3.8%) discuss their methods. One cook simply states: “Do one thing at a time. If you’re getting boxes, get boxes. If you’re getting iodine, get iodine. Getting them together is suspicious” [121]. Another cook explains how he and his wife divided the purchases and stores: Never went to buy batteries at the same place, fuel, fertilizer. Everything was bought at a different place and at reasonable times when it isn’t so conspicuous… My girlfriend was, we worked as a team. She’d get the batteries here and I’d get the fuel here, but that’s not 112 one batch, you’re not getting that every time. Coffee filters we didn’t get at the same store. [124] Rather than buy all components necessary for manufacturing at one time and looking suspicious, participants inconspicuously purchase ingredients one at a time. Still other participants (3 or 5.8%) purchase components with other related items to avoid law enforcement detection. One man (1.9%) and two women (3.8%) effectively work to conceal their suspicious purchases among other ordinary goods. A cook explains: I didn’t go in the store and buy just the stuff that I needed to cook- if I needed some Coleman’s fuel I would do some shopping in that area, some materials for lanterns, fishing stuff, stuff that could be incorporated, to blend in. If I was buying salt, I’d buy a little bit of groceries. You don’t want to go up with a cart full of stuff that is blatantly obvious that you’re making meth. [103] A few participants disguise their component purchasing by buying other relevant items simultaneously. Other less frequently used strategies include removing box barcodes and ordering Sudafed from Canada. Five participants discuss the importance of removing the barcodes from the pills immediately after purchase. This way the pills cannot be connected to the purchaser. Additionally, one participant admits ordering Sudafed from Canada to circumvent US limits. Cooking Seventy-five percent (39) of participants use particular strategies during the cooking process to prevent detection by law enforcement. Fourteen men and 13 women in the sample cook methamphetamine. However, 18 men and 21 women indicate using strategies to avoid law enforcement during this process. All 27 cooks use at least one strategy to avoid police while cooking while a few others who do not cook report using strategies, such as cleaning up, while helping out with the cooking process. 113 The most commonly reported strategy during the cooking process is cleaning up and disposing of trash. Over half of participants (30 or 57.7%) discuss clean-up as a crucial step in avoiding law enforcement detection. Similar proportions of women (16 or 30.8%) and men (14 or 26.9%) use this tactic. Popular ways to discard trash are to burn it, dump it in rivers, and/or disseminate it in separate dumpsters. A female boxer stresses the importance of disposing of all Sudafed packaging: There are UPC codes on boxes. You have to always get rid of box trash. As soon as you get them you pop them and get rid of the boxes. You were breaking down and taking them out of the box right away. The silver foil, when you pull that back it has UPC codes on it. And when you pop the box, on the inside of the box where the glue goes, there’s a UPC code in there. [210] These UPC codes are linked to the individual who signed the registry, so appropriately destroying any piece that could link to the purchaser is crucial in protecting boxers. In addition to disposing of box packaging, participants stress the importance of hiding other pieces of trash. A male cook describes the different ways in which he would discard trash: “I burned trash, dumped it, or have a bonfire. It’ll burn down but it doesn’t turn to ashes. I’d get rid of it eventually but it floats. I tried to throw all my components in a bag and dump it in the river and it floats” [109]. A female cook also found the floating components to be troublesome but reveals her solution: If you’re going to the lakes or the deep ends of the river we’d wrap it up in a bag, get the air out, and tie a brick around it. We’d put it in coolers and threw it in dumpsters of companies and businesses… We always wore gloves so there were no prints, not even on the bag. [214] In addition to tying a brick to the trash bags to prevent them from floating and getting discovered, 214 is also careful to prevent fingerprints, another common practice. 203, a helper, describes, in detail, several practices 114 I’d clean up, get rid of the garbage. That’s a process. You can’t keep it in your house. You try to be a little conscious of what dumpster you’re going to put in it or if you burn it, there are things they can find in it that shows you’re making dope. You got to clean out your house. You have to know how to dispose of it without leaving a trail to you. We’d use a fire pit- if you burn your trash you have to sift through ashes and get all the pucks out. [What’s a puck?] Plastic and fertilizer/ice packs- when that gets to a certain point of heat it looks just like a hockey puck… If you dumped things in dumpsters you’d have to wipe off all the bottles. It’s hard to pull prints off bottles and the chemical reaction usually pulls them off. But just to be safe. Hoses, bottles, you’d wipe things down. You don’t use full dumpsters because you don’t want your trash on top… We’d give it to some of the people who would trade boxes for dope. We’d give them a little extra dope to get rid of some garbage [203] Participants are rather creative in disposing of manufacturing trash in ways that prevent their detection. They viewed wiping off fingerprints and then burning it, separating it into dumpsters, and/or throwing it in rivers as effective ways to evade law enforcement. This strategy is in stark contrast to law enforcement officers’ descriptions of methamphetamine laboratories. 306 describes laboratories as messy and filled with garbage, easily incriminating the residents of methamphetamine production. He explains: A lot of them aren’t throwing away their garbage so they have a burn barrel out back that will have cans of starter fluid with a hole punched in it. Like an aerosol can with a hole punched in it so they can get the liquid out. They don’t want the aerosol they just want the contents. All kind of that stuff. So it’s not, it’s usually all in the same general area. Other components are discarded and burned. [306] He also describes homes as being filled with trash with no visible attempts at keeping them clean. This may mean that constantly disposing of trash is an effective strategy at avoiding law enforcement. This may indicate that participants who cautiously frequently dispose of trash are less likely to be found or charged by police. Getting rid of trash may also be a strategy that gets abandoned as the paranoia of the substance sets in or as one’s addiction progresses. Another strategy to elude law enforcement that was used during manufacturing is choosing a private cook location. Methamphetamine is predominantly found in rural locations 115 (Herz, 2000; Wermuth, 2000). A majority of participants interviewed also report their involvement in rural areas. A common (18 or 35.6%) tactic to avoid law enforcement is to take advantage of the rural environment and cook in secluded, private locations. Eleven women (21.2%) report using this strategy, compared to seven men (13.5%). A female helper explains her market’s preference for private locations: “We were very careful about where we did it. It was mostly out in the country. Not in town, that’s for sure. Wherever was deserted and not a lot of traffic, not a lot of cops, basically not in town. Or if so, out of city limits. Not in a hotel” [207]. A few participants put additional effort into location scouting by watching possible sites for a few days prior to manufacturing: “Sometimes we’d watch the spot for 3-4 days to see who was in and out and how many people came to the cemetery. The cemetery was the easiest because you could have the eyes throughout the whole cemetery. You could see the road, you could see the entrance” [214]. Participants stress the importance of cooking in private, secluded locations to avoid law enforcement detection. Law enforcement officers discuss this strategy of concealment as it relates to the increased mobility of methamphetamine laboratories. Because the cooking process has evolved to a very simple method, the one pot cook method, it is easy for members to find private locations in which to cook: Cooking it offsite, not doing it at your own house, you know since it takes such a short period of time you can go to someone else’s house, you can go out to the outskirts, you can do it in the back of your vehicle. The short time frame to manufacture makes it easier to conceal and do it in different places. Some of the processes, if you’re not doing the one pot, you can do different parts of the process in different locations so you aren’t doing it all in one place. [303] Further, 306 discusses how cooks know the ideal times of year to seek out cook spots in the woods: 116 They’re moving and they’re like, especially in the summer time you can get out in remote areas and not be seen. In the spring you have your turkey hunters and in the fall you have your deer hunters and then the bad weather comes. But in the middle of the summer you can out and away and not be seen unless you have the once in awhile hiker or farmer or whoever’s going to find you out there. They’re harder to find I guess. [306] Law enforcement officers are aware of cook’s strategies to cook in private locations. Finding these locations, however, is still difficult. Similarly, twelve participants (23%) frequently change their cooking locations. Constantly switching locations allows cooks to remain undetected. A female helper reports that she and her partner, the cook, would “try not to be in the same place twice” [203]. They would find new locations to cook each time in order to keep law enforcement from discovering their market. Another cook admits: “I wouldn’t stay at the same place too long. I was always moving around” [220]. Nearly a quarter of participants reveal moving around and changing cook locations was an important strategy in avoiding exposure to law enforcement. Another strategy cooks use to prevent law enforcement detection is staying secretive. A few cooks (9 or 17.3%) either kept the fact that they cooked a secret or kept the details of when or where they were cooking a secret. Twice as many men (6 or 11.5%) report using this strategy than women (3 or 5.8%). 106, a male cook, pretends to be a boxer so that others will not know he is the cook: I was grabbing everything on my own, I didn’t want anyone to know. I would get boxes from other people and say ‘my boy, he’ll make it and give you a .25 gram when he’s done’ and I would go do it and take the boxes. ‘I’ll call you in 2 hours when it’s done.’ I had no helper. I did it by myself. [106] 106 would tell others he was collecting boxes for a cook when in reality he was the cook. He never worked with a helper, so no one ever knew he was a cook. Another cook, 121, makes sure that no single person knows all the pieces of his market: 117 Not letting people know anything about the whole thing. You have to, there’s people that will find out pieces no matter what, but keeping them pieces separated. That’s the best thing you can do. I can tell someone I cook all day long but unless they see you it’s hearsay. That’s how they got caught, Cook 1 and Cook 2. [121] Cooks rely on secrecy to prevent law enforcement detection. Some keep secret the fact that they cook while others simply keep partial information from their customers so that no one person know the complete operation. Lastly, participants discuss ways to combat the strong smell produced from methamphetamine manufacturing (Swetlow, 2003). Despite the large number of participants cooking out in the woods, some do cook indoors or in their homes. Seven individuals (13.5%) discuss ways to either ventilate or seal their cooking space. Women (5 or 9.6%) are much more likely to be concerned about ventilation than men (2 or 3.8%). While cooking inside, 206 reveals that she would: “Have a fan in window while cooking at night to blow air out” [206]. A boxer, in a large, family based market, would often cook or help cook in a vehicle. However, he made adjustments so he “Had a hose hooked to intake of truck so it would suck fumes through engine and burn it and go out through the exhaust” [101]. 101 created a system to mask the smell of cooking methamphetamine. Some individuals, however, seal off rooms to contain the smell inside. This prevents anyone outside from smelling and reporting it. 204, a cook, describes her setup: We had a “room in the basement boxed off with plastic with a blanket over the bottom basement door and over the top. It didn’t actually keep any smell in” [204]. Another helper discusses how her cook masked the smell while cooking in hotel rooms: “When we were cooking it, if she was in a motel she’d stick blankets under the door and spray it with smelly stuff so the smell wouldn’t get outside” [221]. The smell of methamphetamine cooking is very powerful and participants speak candidly about their efforts to conceal the odor. 118 Participants reveal other infrequently used strategies to remaining undetected by law enforcement, such as having surveillance, cooking at particular times of the day, cooking near water, not hanging around the cooks, and always using a helper. Five individuals (9.6%), all females, report having someone “look out” during the cooking process. These “watchers” would alert the cooks to any approaching police so the cooks could destroy and/or hide any indication of a laboratory before the police reached the residence. Four individuals (7.7%) only cook during a certain time of day that they believe best conceals the process. Individuals who cook during the day prefer it because they feel it looks less suspicious and because they like to be able to see the surrounding property in case law enforcement or other people visit. Those who cook at night believe it conceals them and offers more protection. Two participants (3.8%), both men, always cook near water. They would purposely travel to lakes or river beds to cook so they could quickly throw the bottles of mixture in the water if they caught on fire. One user (1.9%) spends as little time with the cook and in the cook’s house as possible. He believes the best way to avoid the ever present threat of police “busting down” the cook’s door is to not be at the cook’s house. Lastly, only one woman (1.9%) always uses a helper while cooking. She explains that it is safer to use a helper because cooks are often awake for days to weeks a time and helpers can help prevent fires, which attract police. Selling Participants very carefully choose the people to whom they sell methamphetamine. Sixty percent (31) of individuals discuss using particular tactics while selling to prevent arrest. Seventy-seven percent of men (17 of 22) and 73.7 of women (14 of 19) who sell methamphetamine use law enforcement avoidance strategies while performing that role. Similar to research on ways in which drug market members avoid arrest, participants in this study avoid 119 arrest by selling to select customers, changing their cellular phones and numbers, and prohibiting customers from entering their homes (Jacobs, 1993, 1996; Johnson & Natarajan, 1995; Sviridoff & Hillsman, 1994; Worden et al., 1994). Over a quarter of participants (14 or 26.9%), equal numbers of males and females, reveal that they only sell to a few customers. As a dealer, 108 takes special care to protect himself against selling to undercover officers or untrustworthy users who may “snitch.” 108 explains: “I didn’t deal with a lot of people. I sold to the same people unless they really couldn’t meet… To me that’s how you get [caught], selling to someone you don’t know” [108]. A cook reveals his system: “I sold to people I knew or through people I knew. You give it [to] the people you know, don’t mention my name, don’t say where you got it, and don’t bring them here” [109]. 109 is careful to only sell to users he knows or has a connection with and stresses that his customers never mention his name. Cooks and dealers also protect themselves by frequently changing their cell phones or phone numbers (Jacobs & Miller, 1998). Twelve participants (23.1%) admit feeling paranoid that the phones were tapped or that police could use them to track their location. However, none of the individuals who were arrested for methamphetamine related charges report their phones playing any role in the incident. One cook explains: “I’d change my phone number frequently. I was paranoid- I’d think my phone was tapped” [212]. Other participants divulge keeping multiple cell phones- one for family and friends and legitimate use and one, or more, specifically for their methamphetamine business. A cook explains: “I had multiple phones at one time. This number is for personal calls and personal stuff and a couple throw aways for people trying to get a hold of me to tell me they had something I might want” [119]. Another cook had a similar system of multiple phones but would still feel paranoid about his designated methamphetamine 120 market phones: “I always had a girlfriend, not always the same one; I switched a few times, so I’d use their phone a lot of the time. I pretty much had two phones all the time. If I’d get paranoid about my phone I’d trade them phones” [117]. Lastly, a small group of cooks (6 or 11.3%) would prohibit users from coming to their house. A small proportion of women (4 or 7.7%) and men (2 or 3.8%) use this strategy. Cooks understand that frequent traffic at a residence looks suspicious (Jacobs & Miller, 1998). To combat this, they did not sell from their homes. A male cook says: “I didn’t let anyone come to the house unless it was a family member and they’re staying. I lived right in town and I didn’t want people coming over, but people are going to anyway, you have friends” [124]. Another male cook describes the suspicious nature of frequent visitors who only stay a few minutes: I never once had people come over. They never came to my house. I don’t see how they let people come to their house, that’s just asking. People have friends, but not friends who come over every day for 5 minutes and let their car run in the parking lot. There’s something obviously going on. Even with trusted friends like 215 [a female cook]. If she came over she knew she had to hang out for half hour or an hour, maybe go to the store and grab a pop, look like we were hanging out. I even look out for the people I would get my shit from. I’d ask ‘is it straight if I do here so I don’t have to run with it?’ [106] 106 was very concerned about his actions, or those of his associates, being perceived as suspicious. He ensured each methamphetamine deal looked like any other get together with friends. Participants discuss several other less frequently used tactics to avoid law enforcement. For example: using meet up locations, no phone conversations, screening clients, no sales after midnight, wearing disguises, and going to neutral locations after a sale. Five participants (9.6%) set up specific meeting locations. They believe that constantly changing the locations prevents police from being able to watch (Jacobs, 1996; Johnson & Natarajan, 1995; Svirido & Hillsman, 1994). Again similar to prior findings (Jacobs & Miller, 1998), four participants (7.7%) talk in 121 codes over the phone or did not use phones at all out of fear of them being tapped by police (Jacobs & Miller, 1998). Three participants (5.8%) discuss the importance of screening clients. They would not sell to or deal with known snitches or ask mutual friends about their trustworthiness. Two participants (3.8%) cease all business after midnight because they feel it looks suspicious to neighbors, who may call the police. One woman (1.9%) admits to wearing disguises so police would not recognize her driving around town. She frequently wore different wigs and hats to appear different. One cook (1.9%) learned that after witnessing a drug sale, police can only follow you into the next one or two places you enter. Thus, 106 developed a rather smart strategy- after making a sale, he would always make a few stops before going home so the police could not enter nor search his home. He laughingly explains: “I looked up online and double checked with a prosecuting attorney. When I sold it I’d go to the party store, go to laundry mat and look at the laundry and if they were watching me they’d be like this guy is retarded, he’s at the car wash and doesn’t even have a car” [106]. Car While some participants focus on cooking privately and only selling to people they know, nearly half of participants (24 or 46.2%) avoid police by focusing on their vehicles. Participants report changing vehicles, ensuring their vehicles are legal, and hiding methamphetamine creatively in the vehicle. Twelve participants (23%) routinely switch cars to prevent being followed or identified by police. Similar proportions of men (7 or 13.5%) and women (5 or 9.6%) use this strategy. 105, a male cook, prevents police from identifying his vehicle by constantly buying new ones: “I change cars, always change cars. I had a new car every 2 to 3 months” [105]. Changing cars made cooks and dealers more inconspicuous to local authorities. Another cook has a different 122 method for obtaining new vehicles: “I’d take other people’s cars. I’d get on Craig’s List and trade my car for something else. I’d buy a new car every few months. I’d always have cars in different people’s names” [117]. Cook 119 would routinely trade methamphetamine for the use of user’s vehicles “I switched cars all the time. I’d use other users’ cars, ‘here’s a .25 gram, I’m going to use your car for a few days.’ It’d turn into a .5 gram. I’d always make sure their insurance and registration was up to date” [119]. 119 trades methamphetamine for the use of vehicles but also ensures each vehicle he borrows has current insurance and registration. Six participants (11.5%) stress the importance of driving and borrowing legal cars, meaning vehicles with current insurance and legislation. Equal numbers of men and women use this strategy. 112, in addition to borrowing other peoples’ vehicles, relies on others to drive him around to make delivers and purchase necessary components. He explains: I would make sure the “person driving was legal so it wouldn’t cause a search. When getting rides from people I’d make sure they have a license and the car is legal” [112]. Cook 117 similarly ensures that any vehicle he borrows is current with registration and insurance: “If I had something in the car I wanted that car to be fully legal so they had no reason to search it” [117]. Legal vehicles are safer to drive because, when checked by police, there is no reason to conduct a search or investigate the vehicle and possibly uncover methamphetamine or components. Driving with methamphetamine is rather common as cooks and dealers often deliver the substance. Seven participants (13.5%), three men (5.8%) and four women (7.7%), take special care to hide methamphetamine or components in their car in case they are stopped by law enforcement. 106, a male cook, places his methamphetamine in the car’s muffler: “I put the bottle in the muffler. And even when I rode with that I tucked it up in the car and took the 123 muffler off and put it up in there. I had a fireproof safe and I’d put it in that up in the car where it couldn’t be found. You can get screwed over for the little stuff” [106]. A helper is very creative in how she hides methamphetamine in her vehicle: “I’d be placing it under the hood, in the trunk, in a Tampax container and melt it back shut. Anything to keep from riding dirty” [221]. Lastly, while smurfing, 202 is careful to dispose of the box packaging, but is also careful to hide the numerous pills in her vehicle: “On my Detroit or Lansing trips I would buy a teddy bear with collar or bow, slit the neck and stuff the pills in the bear. You have to hide 30 boxes or 300 pills at a time” [202]. Participants put a great deal of effort into hiding methamphetamine in their vehicles or in items within their vehicles. Other strategies include avoiding using cars, using back roads, only driving in “nice” cars, and disguising vehicles. Three participants (5.8%) avoid driving or riding in cars when carrying methamphetamine or while buying components. They think that police successfully find methamphetamine market involved individuals through traffic stops, and by not being in a vehicle, they can avoid law enforcement detection. Two individuals (3.8%), both women, are careful to always drive on back roads when they have methamphetamine components in the vehicle. They both believe that this strategy keeps them hidden from police. Two participants (3.8%) explain that police notice older, poorly maintained vehicles faster than nice ones, so they only drive or ride in newer, well-kept vehicles. Lastly, one male cook admits to painting his truck two different colors so that it looks like a different vehicle from each side. This way he believes police will have a harder time recognizing it if it caught their attention. Storing components Unique to methamphetamine markets is the ability to be arrested for simply having or owning two of the several components necessary for manufacturing. A small number of 124 participants (6 or 11.5%) take special precautions when storing their components so that they will not legally constitute a laboratory if police search their homes or vehicles. This is similar to cocaine market members hiding cocaine in their homes (Jacobs & Miller, 1998). Equal numbers of men (2 or 2.8%) and women (2 or 3.8%), 4 or 7.7% of participants, store the ingredients separately, in their natural place, in their homes. A female boxer who occasionally helps and sells says: “I keep components separate in the house. I put them were they might naturally belong instead of keeping them together” [223]. Another male cook explains: “Any leftover supplies, you didn’t have to buy it every time. If it was a bottle of hydrogen peroxide or lighter fluid I’d put it where it belonged in the house and not keep it together” [112]. 223 and 112 discuss the importance of not storing iodine or hydrogen peroxide with salt, batteries, or Sudafed, for example, as that would constitute a methamphetamine lab according to the law. Other participants (2 or 3.8%), however, did not want to risk having the components in their homes and would hide them outside. 216, a female cook, sometimes hid them in her house, but would often hide them outside: “I’d be putting them in a duffle bag and hiding them in a cupboard or out in the field” [216]. She hid them so no one would be stumble upon them nor could they be linked to her by police. A male cook further explains: “I kept components separate and out in the woods. I never hid it all in one bag; you don’t put all your eggs in one basket. The hardest stuff to get wouldn’t all be in one bag so if I lost one I wouldn’t be all the way screwed” [106]. 106 is careful to divide his components into different bags, separating the most valuable pieces. Similar to the trash disposal strategy, law enforcement officers’ experiences stand in contrast to the strategies participants use. Officers generally report that they found laboratories 125 as quite messy, with all the components left out and together, which immediately alerted officers to the presence of a laboratory. 306 recounts: Generally they’re [the components] pretty much together. Once they use what they need they toss and it and they’re on to the next thing. They’re on the next thing, scatterbrained. There’s just stuff all over the place. But they’ll cook in all different parts of the house. Maybe they have some counter space here, or they can have the coffee filters setting out where they put it through. Maybe this is the area by the window where they have the shake and bakes going so they can burp them. And the breeze takes it out the window but not too much because then people will smell it. There can be things around. Usually if you go plant yourself in the middle of the room where they’re cooking you can see everything but the burn piles out back. [306] It is unclear if participants who store their components separately or out of their home better avoid law enforcement, or if that strategy is not sustainable, and all laboratories eventually resemble the one detailed above. Police Despite participants using a great variety of law enforcement avoidance strategies, very few participants (2 or 3.8%) describe strategies for actual interactions with police. 110, a professional boxer, states: “Police don’t really know anything unless you tell them” [110]. While he did not have any interactions with police, his sentiment is shared by 210, a female boxer, who reports lying to police: “Me and 209 were pulled over. We were clean, but we lied to them. We were telling them ‘no, we don’t know those people’ but we had just left them. We knew they were watching… Just lying to police, denying things. Denying association with them, deny being around them” [210]. Additionally, while seven individuals (13.5%) reveal their dislike for snitches, one female cook readily admits to, when apprehended by police, giving them a name of someone involved in a methamphetamine market that she did not like so she would not get charged. 126 Lastly, and previously unfound in literature on methamphetamine markets, is the divulgence of corrupt police protecting a cook. 119 reveals: I knew some people that worked for the sheriff’s department, kind of like an inside thing. There are some people involved in law enforcement that used it too. They gave me favors and looked the other way. That’s part of the reason I didn’t get caught. I’d get a call and they’d say ‘Where are you at? Police are raiding a house over here.’ Or if they were patrolling a certain road I’d stay off those roads. 119 is effective in avoiding law enforcement due to officers alerting him as to when he may be in danger of other officers. Using Six participants (11.5%), five women (9.6%) and one man (1.9%), reveal strategies to avoid law enforcement while using methamphetamine. Four participants (7.7%) explain that they always stay home while using methamphetamine. This reduces the likelihood of being detected by police or someone else reporting them to law enforcement. 115 admits: “When we used we stayed home and under the radar” [115]. One female user, married into a family based market, discloses: I would just be myself. I was scared to death. I’ve never been to jail and never wanted to be. I think that helped me getting me away from it. I only used at 109’s house. For the most part we would just stay there. We were both paranoid, we wouldn’t go many places unless we had to. We would stay in the yard but we wouldn’t go out unless we had to. [219] A few participants admit to feeling safest using at home. One main effect of methamphetamine is increased wakefulness (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2006b; United States Drug Enforcement Administration, 2006; Winslow et al., 2007). While many participants mention being awake for days or even a week at a time, two participants (3.8%) make it a point to regularly sleep to stay sharp and avoid accidents. A user 127 admits: “I’d get sleep and not get fucking looped up and spun out. After 5 days you start to hallucinate and things don’t make sense. I would sleep, catch up on sleep, and eat” [222]. A cook similarly adds: I would stay up ‘til about 5 or 6 am and go to bed, high or not. Maybe I only slept for a few hours or not at all. But from 4:30 am to about 11 am or noon I would sleep or rest every day. I didn’t like the paranoid feeling that you got with the sleep deprivation. Most meth addicts will go and go until they fall over… Resting or sleeping every night gave me better judgment than someone who’s been up. [204] A few participants believe staying home while using and regularly sleeping are effective strategies to avoid law enforcement. Intersections Very few participants use only one category of strategies (10 or 19.2%). A majority of participants (40 or 76.9%) use several strategies across categories. Figure 9 illustrates the overlap in the most common strategy categories, getting ingredients, cooking, selling, and hiding pills and/or methamphetamine in one’s vehicle. Eight participants (15.4%) report using avoidance strategies in the four main categories of getting ingredients, cooking, selling, and hiding supplies in vehicles. Six participants (11.5%) reveal using strategies in three categories: cooking, selling, and hiding supplies in vehicles. Overall, men and women use markedly similar strategies to avoid law enforcement. In general, however, these strategies are proactive to prevent situations in which participants have to actually interact with police. Female law enforcement avoidance strategies After individuals were asked about what strategies they did use to avoid law enforcement detection, they were asked about gender based strategies. Both men and women were asked what strategies they could use that the other gender could not use, and then what strategies the 128 other gender could use that they could not employ. Overall, men and women believe that men are at a disadvantage for the strategies that they can use to avoid police. Both men and women are under the impression that women can use a variety of rather gendered approaches, such as flirting, crying, and playing dumb, to convince police they are innocent. Men and women both believe that the only strategy men are better at than women is running from police. Jenkot (2011) similarly finds methamphetamine market involved individuals use gendered approaches to avoiding arrest, but rather than relying on crying and flirting with police, women in his markets paired off with men to appear as a romantic couple. One third of participants (18 or 34.6%), seven men (13.5%) and ten women (19.2%), believe there are no strategies that only women can use. Two thirds of women (35 or 67.3%), however, details ways in which women can either avoid law enforcement or convince police that they are not involved in methamphetamine markets. In opposition to the proactive strategies that men and women do use, the strategies that men and women think women can use are reactive. They are strategies used to prevent interactions with police from turning to arrests. Play dumb The most common strategy men and women say females can use to get out of an encounter with law enforcement is to play dumb. Twelve participants (23%), three men (5.8%) and eight women (15.4%), detail how women can use this strategy, but men cannot. A male boxer says: “Acting innocent or playing dumb. Playing the innocent role. Women are good at that. No offense [laughs]” [125]. Despite no women talking about this strategy in the above section, 212, a cook, references unsuccessful attempts at paying dumb with police: “Act stupid. I always said ‘I didn’t know what was going on. He told me we were here to hang out. I didn’t know he was doing it.’ It didn’t work” [212]. A female boxer speculates: “I guess we can play 129 dumb, cry. We can pull a ‘I have no idea what I’ve done’ kind of thing” [224]. Playing dumb to police is the most commonly believed gendered strategy that women can use to escape accountability and/or arrest. Crotch dope The second most common strategy that men and women believe females can use to avoid arrest is “crotching” methamphetamine. Twenty-one percent (11) of participants (five or 9.6% males and six or 11.5% females) discuss crotching. Crotching is when women hide drugs in their body cavity. While hidden, the substances are undetectable in searches by male law enforcement officers. One female helper admits using this strategy while delivering methamphetamine with her wife, the cook. The helper says: “Women hide dope easier by crotching it. Men don’t like riding dirty unless there are women with them” [203]. Her partner [204] corroborates the sentiment by affirming the fact that women are effective at croching methamphetamine and that men prefer to have women in vehicles with them in case they are stopped by police. A male cook reveals: “Women conceal drugs by crotching it. There are more male police officers than female; I assume there are laws about searching people” [112]. One local law enforcement officer validates this strategy. He explains: “Women, I think it’s just where they hide it. I think women feel if they hide it in certain private area their chances of us finding it or trying to find it may be a little different” [304]. No other law enforcement officers know any gendered arrest avoidance strategies, and this is the only one reported by 304. Cry A few more women (4 or 7.7%) than men (2 or 3.8%) believe that they could cry to a law enforcement officer to prevent arrest or to avoid implication in methamphetamine related 130 activities. 107, a male cook, presumes that crying is effective: “Crying, maybe, I don’t know. I never got busted with a woman so I don’t know if she could talk out” [107]. 210, a female boxer, admits to crying to a law enforcement officer after getting pulled over to appear innocent: “Tears. Me and 209 got pulled over and even though we were clean we put the water works on” [210]. Men and women both assume that, when dealing with law enforcement officers, women can cry to avoid a ticket or assumption of methamphetamine market involvement. However, only one woman actually admits attempting this strategy despite doing nothing illegal at the time of her police interaction. Flirt Four men (7.7%) believe women can flirt with law enforcement officers to prevent arrest or avoid officers’ assumption of methamphetamine market involvement. A cook says: “I’m sure. I’m sure they could talk their way out of it if they’re good looking. They could use the sex appeal” [119]. Another cook imagines women can not only flirt but offer sexual favors to law enforcement officers to avoid arrest: “Sweet talking. I suppose they could offer a blow job. I guess men could do that too but that probably wouldn’t go over well [laughs]” [116]. In addition to crying and acting dumb, some men believe that women can additionally take advantage of their gender by flirting and offering sexual favors to law enforcement officers to avoid arrest. Lie When asked what strategies she uses to avoid law enforcement, one woman, a boxer, reveals lying to police to avoid association with other methamphetamine market involved individuals (detailed in the previous section). When men and women were asked about ways in which women could avoid arrest, four participants (7.7%), one male (1.9%) and three females (5.8%), draws on a stereotype that women are better at lying to police to avoid arrest or 131 knowledge of their involvement in the drug market. 214, a cook, explains the gendered difference: “I don’t know if men can lie as well as women. I could lie pretty good. I could look a cop straight in the eyes and lie to him” [214]. Another female cook describes a specific instance where she lied to police to direct their attention away from her: During the 2nd raid when we were caught we told the police that the dude who was making it went up the road to get someone and that he’d be back soon. The cops believed us, they sat in their car for a while waiting for the car to come back, but there wasn’t a car since we made up the story. Men probably wouldn’t get away with making up a story. Cops think men are more likely to be doing it. Back when we were doing it, all the guys I worked with had been busted but I hadn’t. [202] By lying to police 202 shifts their attention onto a made up someone else and deflects their attention. Others Other less frequently mentioned gendered strategies that males and females believe females can employ effectively are hiding methamphetamine in their clothes and snitching on others. Two participants (3.8%) describe women as better able to hide drugs in their clothes due to the tentativeness or unwillingness of the overwhelmingly male police force to carefully search women. One female admits that she regularly hides methamphetamine in her bra in case she gets stopped by police. A male cook laments how easy it is for women to go undetected in the methamphetamine market: “Women are better at hiding it in their clothes. If I was a woman and I did drugs I wouldn’t ever need to make it. I wish I was a female; I wouldn’t have to do anything” [116]. Another two participants (3.8%) posit that women are more likely to snitch, or tell on others to avoid arrest. 203, a helper, believes that women snitch much faster and more 132 frequently than men. A male cook explains that women snitch because they are scared: I don’t know. The women told, the girls would tell and they would get released on their own recognizance. I’m not saying guys didn’t tell. They did and that’s who I didn’t associate with. Girls told quicker than men, they got scared easier. As soon as they threw in [women are arrested] you’re going to jail. [105] 105 jokes that women are so much more likely to snitch that as soon as a female is arrested he knew she would give police his name for her freedom, and he would be arrested next. Male law enforcement avoidance strategies Men and women are rather pessimistic about men being able to use any strategies that women cannot use to avoid arrest. A majority of men (23 or 92%) and women (22 or 81.5%) believe men do not have any strategies that they can use that women cannot to avoid arrest. Much like women’s assumed advantage of avoiding arrest by using stereotypically feminine tactics, the few men (2 or 8%) and women (5 or 18.5%) who believe males have gender specific arrest avoidance tactics detail stereotypically masculine and athletic tactics. The only two strategies participants think men can use but women cannot are running away and driving away from police. Run Six participants (11.5%), two men (8% of males) and four women (14.8% of females), believe men have an advantage over women at running away from police. A female cook describes her experience with men running: “Running. Some guys could outrun police and get away on foot. One even got away from the police dog. It took down his brother, though” [201]. A male user explains why he thinks men are more likely than women to run away from law enforcement: 133 Umm, guys would take off running through the woods to avoid police. Women don’t. Guys will do anything to get away. Women know they’re caught. When I think women are smarter than guys about it. They think more about the process of it and what they’re doing. They know what they’re doing. Most guys don’t really care. Women care more. [123] The main strategy that participants believe men have a gendered advantage with is physically running from law enforcement to escape. Drive One woman (1.9%) believes the only tactic men can use to escape police that women cannot is to drive in a way that prevents him from being followed. She explains: “Probably driving. If we thought we were being followed he would just know how to lose them. I would just panic and immediately brake and want to turn. My husband told me never to do that” [226]. Besides running from police, one woman identified driving aggressively as another gendered approach men use to escape police. Arrest Participants talk in depth about what strategies they use to avoid police and about what men and women can do when interacting with police to avoid arrest. Participants were also asked if they had ever been subject to a methamphetamine related arrest and for the circumstances surrounding the arrest. A total of 32 participants (61.5%), 18 women (66%) and 14 men (56%), admit being arrested for methamphetamine related charges. A small minority of participants (6 of 11.5%) describe using arrest avoidance strategies when they were arrested. Ten participants (19.2%), however, admit they were not using any strategies at that time. Two (3.8%) participants learned strategies from their arrest and five participants (9.6%) told on others for reduced charges. A few participants were arrested under usual circumstances, negating any strategies they may have been using. Two (3.8%) participants faced arrest after their laboratories 134 exploded, and one participant (1.9%) was arrested after a routine traffic stop alerted police to her warrant. Three individuals (5.8%) who were arrested for methamphetamine related charges did not give any contextual information about the incident. See Figure 10 for visual representation of the context surrounding participants’ arrest. No strategies Ten participants (19.2%), half men and half women, admit using none of their regular law enforcement avoidance strategies prior to their arrest. 105, a cook who routinely uses law enforcement avoidance strategies while getting ingredients, cooking, selling, and driving with the substance, describes his lapse in judgment: “No, when I got arrested I just accepted it. I was just like I can’t believe it took you this long. I remember driving around with tinted windows, no seat belt, no plate on my car at all, no insurance, with a full lab in my trunk just knowing if I got pulled over I was done” [105]. 105 discusses the natural decline many participants face in the rigor with which they upheld their arrest avoidance tactics. Many report becoming more lax as they succumbed to the market chaos. A dealer who uses several strategies to avoid law enforcement while selling methamphetamine describes the result of not following his gut instinct: “I caught 6 deliveries of meth all in the same basic crime spree, but in 2 different counties. I tried not to sell to people I didn’t know, but met the guy and had a bad feeling the whole time that he was a cop. I had a bad feeling but did it anyway” [114]. Nearly a fifth of participants felt that they broke with a prior pattern of avoiding arrest. Standard strategies Conversely, six participants (11.5%), all cooks, explain that despite using their usual arrest avoidance strategies prior to their arrest, they were still captured by police. 212, a cook involved in a family based market, describes acting innocent with police and using her sister’s 135 identity to prevent law enforcement from realizing she has absconded: “I tried giving them my sister’s birthday. I was absconding and I was out of state. I tried acting as normal as possible. I acted like I was just riding along [in the car with her friend]” [212]. 220, her sister, explains getting reported to police during her routine trips out into the woods to cook: “When I caught my meth case I was outside on the railroad tracks. We tried to stay away from streets and houses, we tried to stay secluded. Someone called on us. It was a stranger. He seen us walk through his backyard. He said we were siphoning gas” [220]. 102, a cook, explains how he did his best to minimize his involvement in the methamphetamine market when he knew law enforcement was coming: “No, we was good, I used everything [all the strategies] we did. I knew it [cops/arrest] was coming by then. We had already cleaned up the house. I got caught with a .1 gram or something” [102]. Due to his care in cleaning the house his charge was far less severe than it could have been had police found a laboratory. Some participants, despite their best effort to avoid law enforcement, are still apprehended. Learn strategies from arrest Two female cooks (3.8%) explain that their methamphetamine related arrests were necessary in teaching them how to appropriately avoid police. After her arrest, one cook ceased carrying and delivering her own methamphetamine and instead makes her customers come to her: “After my first arrest I went back to cooking the day I got out [spent a couple of weeks locked up]. I just stayed out of town and made everyone come to me” [201]. Her arrest taught her the necessary steps to avoid police. 205, another cook, explains: “No, within two weeks of involvement I got pulled over and raided. I learned from that for what strategies to use” [205]. As a very new cook in the methamphetamine market scene, 205 was arrested rather quickly. 136 After that incident she learned different ways to avoid law enforcement during the cooking process, how to disguise it in vehicles, and to cease contact with casual contacts. Snitch Five participants (9.6%), four of which are cooks, claim their law enforcement avoidance strategies were effective and that they were only arrested because of someone else snitching. Two men (8%) and three women (11.1%) explain the unique situations that lead them to believe others gave police their names. 112, a cook in a friend based market, explains: I was using my regular strategies. I was set up. In that situation, there were about 10 people in trailer when they [police] got there. They sat everyone down, interviewed everyone separately one by one into a room. I escaped. I took off running because there were only 2 police officers there. I was a couple miles from my house that night. After I got away I was in contact with my girlfriend on the phone thinking I could get a ride. Shortly after I told her where I was at the police showed up and I got caught. That’s why I think I got set up. I was initially arrested for a probation violation. The meth charge wasn’t issued until 9 months later. It [the components] was sent to the DEA office in Detroit for testing. [112] The other male cook who indicates a friend snitched describes how effective his arrest avoidance strategies were. He, however, is happy to be recovering methamphetamine addict: My strategies worked for a really long time. My friend told the police, that’s what caught me up. I wasn’t trying to make a bunch, I wasn’t trying to be the center of attention. I try to keep quiet, stay out of the way to do it as privately as I could. Unfortunately it worked for a long time. I stayed smart about it, I tried to be as smart as I could doing it. It worked out ‘til I was told on by a friend, which was actually a blessing in disguise. I wouldn’t be where I am today if I didn’t get drug court. [103] For nearly ten percent of participants, their usual arrest avoidance strategies are effective until a formerly trusted friend, family member, or significant other snitches. Unusual circumstances 137 Three men (5.8% of participants) attribute their arrest to unusual circumstances. They all suggest that their regular law enforcement avoidance strategies were effective and that they only faced arrest due to chance situations. 101, a boxer for his large, family based market, used a great deal of arrest avoidance strategies while getting ingredients and while helping to cook. 101 took abandoned laboratories and reused them. After one combusted, he tried to innocently report it to police. Police charged him with the laboratory: In 2008 I got busted for an attempted mobile lab. The evidence was burned at the side of the road. I flagged the police down and said I found it in a ditch. I said it wasn’t mine, it was left at my house. I was using abandoned cooks: I’d take their cook, heat it, and get more dope. I was arrested 2 months later since it takes time to test. [101] Another cook reveals an even more chance situation leading to his arrest. 116 routinely uses law enforcement avoidance strategies while cooking, selling, and transporting methamphetamine in his vehicle. I went into my son’s school play and held the door open for the head of the swat team. I was down in Indiana buying boxes that day had them in my car and a shotgun… He went back down to the police station and saw me buying $100 of lithium batteries at Target the day before on camera. I had a child support warrant out. After my school play I seen three cop cars after me. It was a fluke. It was a high speed chase through [city]. All that money I had and I was too stupid to pay my child support. They were going to get me eventually. The way I was running around you can’t last too long. I figured nine months was pretty good. [116] Despite their best effort and devotion to their law enforcement avoidance strategies, some methamphetamine market involved individuals are captured through chance circumstances. Explosion Two cooks (3.8%) were arrested after their laboratories combusted. Both admit strictly abiding by particular strategies to avoid police while obtaining ingredients, cooking, selling, and storing components. This attention to detail was shattered when each cook experienced an accident: 138 I was using same strategies when fire happened. I was just bored. I fell asleep and dropped the jar… I put the fire out before I left, I didn’t want the house to burn down… The accident where I caught myself on fire caused, I was out of commission for months and months and month. I didn’t have withdraws from the meth because of all the drugs. I was burned over 60% of my body. [124] 124 fell asleep, which ignited the cook pot. He was able to put the fire out but was very badly burned. Police arrested him in the hospital. 227, after switching a key ingredient in the cooking process, experienced a large explosion that left her unconscious. She awoke days later, in the hospital, with police present. She explained, “I used cold packs instead of sticks. That was the only thing different. I didn’t have a chance to burn the trash; it burned in the house… All I remember was a big boom and the next thing I knew I was the in the hospital. I don’t know how I got out” [227]. Despite rigidly following their arrest voidance strategies, two cooks suffered accidental explosions, alerting police to their manufacturing. Traffic stop Lastly, one female participant (1.9%) was arrested after a routine traffic stop led to a vehicular search. She reports taking great caution when cooking and using methamphetamine, as well as when driving around with it in her vehicle. She explains the unusual situation: No, they stopped me for making a wide turn and I thought nothing was wrong, I don’t know why they stopped me. I was by myself on my way home at night. I didn’t think they had any reason to look in my purse. They said they smelled pot but they didn’t. They searched my purse… I had a .25 gram on me. [221] Despite taking great care in avoiding law enforcement, some participants face fluke circumstances that lead to their arrest. Conclusion In this chapter I outlined the various ways in which participants avoid law enforcement during the many aspects of methamphetamine manufacturing, distribution, and consumption. 139 Over half of participants detail strategies used while buying or stealing ingredients used to make methamphetamine. Participants often take great care in staying at or under the monthly limit on Sudafed or they engage in smurfing ingredients from other stores and towns. Participants are also very careful during the cooking process. They perform such tasks as cleaning up after each step and using private locations to prevent being seen or heard. According to the study participants, these strategies are effective in preventing law enforcement from learning about their business. Another aspect of the methamphetamine business where participants take great care to avoid police is when selling the substance. The most common way to avoid law enforcement during this task is to only sell to a select few customers, often friends, who are known with certainty not to be undercover officers. Participants also detail specific rules they use while driving with methamphetamine, such as hiding it within the vehicle or in normal objects in the vehicle. Lastly, storing components in one’s home is an important aspect in avoiding arrest, as under the law, a few components found together can constitute a methamphetamine laboratory and cause an arrest. Participants discuss being careful in storing their components in different, “typical” places throughout their homes rather than all together for convenience sake. Law enforcement officers report awareness of some of these more common strategies. They recount how the increased mobility of manufacturing allows cooks to seek out private cook locations. Officers also discuss how women crotch methamphetamine, assuming it prevents discovery. Market members and law enforcement officers have drastically different accounts, however, of the effectiveness of burning trash and storing components in one’s home. Participants discuss cleaning up trash but officers indicate laboratories are always messy and filled with trash. Similarly, participants reveal storing their components separately and 140 inconspicuously in their homes. Officers again indicate that discovered laboratories have all the components out in the open. It is unclear if the participants who use these strategies are effective in avoiding law enforcement contact of if they eventually become more relaxed in these endeavors. After asking participants how they avoid law enforcement, they are asked ways in which both men and women can use gendered strategies to prevent arrest. Both men and women believe women have much higher odds of avoiding arrest than men by using stereotypically feminine tactics. These tactics include playing dumb, crying, flirting, and lying to police, as well as crotching methamphetamine. Both men and women struggle to think of ways in which men may have an advantage in avoiding arrest, but are under the impression that men are better able to run away from police. One woman believes that men know how to drive “like a getaway driver,” and thus can effectively lose police when being pursued. Men and women both have rather gendered beliefs about how both sexes can escape contact with police without an arrest. Lastly, this chapter explores participants’ accounts of their methamphetamine related arrests to determine if arrests were due to a lapse in arrest avoidance strategy usage. Thirty-two participants recount a methamphetamine related arrest. A majority of participants arrested were either not using their usual strategies or faced some unusual circumstance that ended with an arrest. Only a small number of participants report an arrest while using their standard law enforcement avoidance strategies suggesting that the tactics may, in fact, be effective in masking their involvement in methamphetamine markets. 141 142 CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION The purpose of this dissertation is to explore the different positions within and structures of methamphetamine markets, men’s and women’s experiences within the markets, and the ways in which members avoid law enforcement while carrying out market related tasks. This chapter summarizes major findings and places these findings within the context of other similar research. It also describes limitations of this study as well as research and policy implications. Summary of findings Consistent with Jenkot (2011) there are specific roles within the market. In this study the main roles were identified as the cook, helper, dealer, boxer, and user. However, this research finds that they are rather fluid as many participants perform many of the roles. Markets are generally small in scale, with less than ten members. Participants reveal that other members of their markets are family and friends. Roughly half of markets are hierarchically structured. Women are more likely to indicate that the market to which they belong is hierarchically structured. Markets are also very loosely structured as members often have roles in multiple markets. Consistent with pathways theory (Baskin et al., 1992; Leve & Chamberlain, 2004) and other drug market research (Dunlap et al., 1997; Maher & Hudson, 2007; Maher, 1997; Sterk, 1999), men are generally introduced to methamphetamine through other male friends. Women are usually introduced to the substance through male partners and male friends. Men and women enter methamphetamine markets in similar ways. Both men and women have a great deal of freedom in their mobility in the market. A vast majority of participants ask to learn higher or different positions or are recruited by others to fill that role. This may be due to the close relationships participants have with their friends and family who constitute other market 143 members. The only major gender difference found to exist in navigating positions within the market was that women are more likely to advance positions by other members telling them to perform a certain task. While this elevates their status within the market, men do not reveal a similar experience. Inconsistent with feminist theory as it applies to other drug markets (Griffin & Rodriguez, 2008; Jacobs & Miller, 1998b; Jenkot, 2011; Maher, 1997; Ratner, 1993), men and women in this study feel that they have a great deal of agency and control over their market involvement. Many women refuse tasks they do not want to perform with no backlash from other members. Again, this may be due to the close friends and family based networks. Also inconsistent with feminist theory (Belknap, 2006; Messerschmidt, 1993) men and women use very similar strategies to avoid law enforcement. The majority of these strategies are centered around obtaining ingredients and cooking methamphetamine. A small number of gender differences exist: women more often report abiding by the Sudafed purchasing limits in pharmacies while men are more careless about them. Women also report a greater concern with cooking in a private location, often outside. Conversely, men are less concerned about where they cook but are more concerned than women with keeping their involvement in the methamphetamine business a secret from outsiders. Overall this study breaks ground by revealing a great deal more gender equality than found in other methamphetamine market research (Jenkot, 2011; Morgan & Joe, 1996) and especially drug market research of substances other than methamphetamine (Griffin & Rodriguez, 2008; Jacobs & Miller, 1998b; Jenkot, 2011; Maher, 1997; Ratner, 1993). Men and women describe similar experiences and have no limitations to what position within the market they can achieve. Men and women work together and no participants mention any discriminatory remarks about such equality. Again, this may be because markets consist of 144 friends and family members. Women are not restricted to lower level positions nor exploited as crack market research indicates (Griffin & Rodriguez, 2008; Jacobs & Miller, 1998b; Jenkot, 2011; Maher, 1997; Ratner, 1993). Women report a great deal of agency and are generally able to easily advance within a market or even act as cook for their own market. All men and a majority of women who do not cook indicate that if they wanted to they could easily learn. However, despite self reports of equality, women report bargaining far less than do men. This is consistent with research on women in the workforce. Women are less likely to ask for a raise, better benefits, or better working conditions (Babcock & Laschever, 2003; Stuhlmacher & Walters, 1999). This explains the disproportionate number of sampled women who do not ask for better treatment, especially where compensation is involved. While the sample was attained through theoretical sampling to achieve rather equal numbers of male and female cooks, it is unclear if this distribution is representative of markets in Michigan. Another significant finding is the lack of violence found in methamphetamine markets. While a small percentage of men and women who act tough do so by using physical violence, it is only 15% of the sample. Perhaps the egalitarian structure of markets, as well as the friend and family based relationships of market members, explains the lack of violence. Research indicates rural families in America to be not only patriarchal, but rather protected from change as residents of these small towns typically interact with others from similar communities (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2009; Pruitt, 2008). Patriarchal influences may not, however, structure the market. Jenkot (2011) found that manufacturing methamphetamine is a task oriented job, and thus men and women will essentially drop any ideologies about patriarchy and gender stereotypes to accomplish the task. 145 Similarly, a great deal of trust exists among market members and users. This again may be explained by the close relationships members have with one another. Some cooks and market members give users bags of trash to dispose of away from the cooking location. Handing over evidence to a user takes a great deal of trust that the user will not give it to law enforcement. However, the fact that all users in this sample participated in the market to some degree, combined with the close friend and family relationships within the market, can explain why members were so trustworthy of one another. It is interesting to note that three of the male participants in this study are nonwhite. Methamphetamine markets are typically found in rural areas and where methamphetamine is used and manufactured by white individuals (Herz, 2000; Kyle & Hansell, 2005; Murray, 1998; National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2006a; Rodriquez et al., 2005; Shears & Furman, 2005). However, two law enforcement officers discuss the growing involvement of minorities in the smurfing and manufacturing process. These findings are unprecedented in methamphetamine research. Triangulating methamphetamine market involved individuals with law enforcement experts revealed a few discrepancies between what market members say they do and what law enforcement officers know to be typical behavior of market members. Participants talk at length about disposing of trash and storing components separately in their homes as law enforcement avoidance strategies that they believe are effective. When talking about laboratories they find, however, law enforcement officers describe them as messy and trash filled, with components in plain sight. It is unclear if participants who use these strategies are more effective in avoiding police or if these strategies are simply difficult to maintain and eventually abandoned. 146 Lastly, participants speak to the inability to make large amounts of money cooking methamphetamine due to the Sudafed registries. Because it is so difficult to obtain Sudafed, cooks offer high incentives for boxers to get Sudafed. Incentives range from $25-75, plus the price of the box, for one $7 box of Sudafed. One box of Sudafed yields just over a gram of methamphetamine. Depending on how high the incentive for the box was, that leaves very little profit for each batch, especially when there are other ingredients and components to purchase. Participants discuss how being a boxer is the most lucrative job, as cooking is no longer very profitable. The sampled law enforcement officers agree with this sentiment and admit that they are finding increasing numbers of families and college students who are buying Sudafed boxes to sell to cooks. So these Sudafed restrictions are essentially shaping the market and keeping them from being very profitable. Limitations As with any study, this project is not without limitations. The primary limitation is the small sample size of the study. Also, the participants were not randomly selected. This prevents this study from being generalized to larger populations. However, the goal of this study was not to generalize to a larger group of methamphetamine markets or market members. It was to explore, explain, and offer insight into a number of markets in Michigan. Further, recruitment techniques enlisted a variety of participants. The sample has a large variation in age (late teens to 60 years of age), length of involvement (a few months to several decades), and roles performed (user, helper, and cook, among others). Thus the study can gather information on a large variety of markets and experiences. While this study made an effort to sample a variety of experiences and market characteristics, the markets discussed by participants were rather small scale and similar in 147 nature. Three participants had experience in markets in other states, one in Nevada and two in California. They describe drastically different markets in those locations. The market in Nevada involved a gay man trading methamphetamine for sex with men he met online. The two individuals with California methamphetamine market experience both describe the Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang running the scene. As the participants’ understood it, the gang trafficked methamphetamine in from Mexico or made it themselves. They describe the market resembling that of a crack cocaine market- top controllers and traffickers with the drug filtering down and getting cut and sold in smaller and smaller amounts. Michigan markets may be unique in that the ones explored in this study are generally small scale and are simply a group of family or friends working together to produce methamphetamine for personal use and as a way to make a little extra money. Alternatively, the sampling approach may have resulted in participants in other types of markets to not be included. This does not seem to be the case as participants described many other markets they knew about or in which they worked. Another limitation is the lack of users without market involvement in this study. Other research (Jenkot, 2011; Morgan & Joe, 1996) identifies “simple users” who only use and are not involved in the market other than purchasing drugs to consume. In this study, no participants were “simple users.” As a result of the sampling approach, all participants who identified as users revealed performing occasional tasks for market members to aid in the manufacturing process. Simple users may have a unique perception of the market or their lack of involvement may be, in and of itself, a law enforcement avoidance strategy. It may be that the small and close knit markets described in this study prevented participants from simply being users and may increase the likelihood of getting involved in the market in some role. Future research can identify simple users and compare their accounts to those of market members. 148 Initial recruitment was through women from another study on probation or parole as well as drug courts, biasing the discussion on arrest avoidance strategies as these women had all come into contact with police. Not all women from the previous study were arrested for methamphetamine related charges, but their contact with police may influence their law enforcement avoidance techniques. However, through snowball sampling and administering flyers at NA groups, I found a small group of individuals who have never had police contact or who have had police contact, but not a methamphetamine related arrest. This balanced how deeply participants were involved in the criminal justice system and how that may influence their experiences in methamphetamine markets. Despite these limitations, this study made a significant contribution to drug market literature. It finds a greater level of equality between male and female members. Men and women reveal an ability to perform any role they desire within the market with no pushback from other market members. Policy implications Law enforcement can better understand how individuals are managing to get large amounts of Sudafed and other components and ingredients to better combat manufacturing. Based on this study’s findings that participants perform a number of roles within a market, police can understand that, unlike the hierarchy typically found in other drug markets, that methamphetamine is usually produced informally with friends and/or family. There is no kingpin and all members work together to manufacture. Rather than “flipping” members to identify someone in a higher position, police combating methamphetamine markets can simply focus on the individuals at hand. 149 Law enforcement can also be smarter when searching vehicles of suspected methamphetamine market individuals. When legally searching a vehicle, they can be sure to check under the vehicle, under the hood, and in stuffed animals or other containers. Because of women’s propensity to hide methamphetamine in their clothes or body, increasing the presence of female law enforcement officers who can legally search methamphetamine market involved women can improve the discovery rate of found substances. Law enforcement officers can also strengthen their patrolling techniques to find laboratories. While some participants admit to cooking in their homes, many cook outdoors to keep their home safe and to prevent the smell from permeating the walls. Understanding that market members use back roads to travel and cook in fields, police can increase their presence in these areas and be vigilant for the tell tale smell of methamphetamine manufacturing to alert them of a working laboratory. Ensuring all pharmacies use an online tracking database and are all linked together will stop smurfing. However, online registries do not reduce methamphetamine labs (United States Government Accountability Office, 2013). Participants are very aware of the Sudafed regulations and devote a great deal of time and money to working around them. They pay others to buy Sudafed boxes or trade methamphetamine for boxes. Some participants pick up and drive indigent populations with valid IDs to pharmacies to buy boxes while compensating them for far more than the price of the box. The only effectively solution, despite unknown costs to individuals and insurance, is to prohibit the over the counter sale of pseudoephedrine products and instead make them prescription only. Oregon adopted this approach in 2006. The state saw an immediate decline in laboratory incidents in the year following and a gradual decline in subsequent years. Mississippi adopted the prescription only approach in 2010 and saw a nearly 150 70 percent drop in methamphetamine laboratory incidents in the following year. Despite unknown costs to individuals legitimately seeking Sudafed and insurance companies as well as the additional burden on physicians, making pseudoephedrine medicines prescription only sales is highly effective in curtailing methamphetamine laboratories. Although this study did not explore treatment options or addiction issues, because a majority of the participants had successfully completed recovery, either through drug court or Narcotics Anonymous, the topic of treatment often arose. Participants spoke favorably of Narcotics Anonymous, but absolutely commended drug courts. All of the respondents who had experienced drug court talked at length at how helpful it was in their recovery process and how it enabled them to piece together other aspects of their lives, such as regaining custody of their children, obtaining a driver’s license, and mending family relationships. Thus another recommendation that can be made is to increase the use of drug courts for drug related charges to help drug offenders get the care and treatment that can help them overcome addiction. Future research This dissertation raises several ideas for future research. First, researchers can look at markets in other settings. This study finds a great deal of gender equality in Michigan markets, which are rather simply structured and disproportionately small. However, from the three participants in this study who have experience with markets out west and literature about methamphetamine markets in other cities (Jenkot, 2011; Morgan & Joe, 1996), other markets are structured quite differently and have different levels of opportunities for women. Future research can explore the factors that shape these market formations and identify men’s and women’s experiences within the different types of markets. 151 Second, future research can disproportionately interview methamphetamine market members who have never been in contact with police nor experienced an arrest to better understand their strategies. Similarly, individuals with extensive methamphetamine arrests can explain what, if anything, they learn from their arrests and whether or not they change any of their practices post-arrest. Future, researchers can invest more time with the participants and in the communities in which they work to better understand the culture and the actions of methamphetamine market members. This can also triangulate the data as the researcher can observe whether or not market members actually do what they say they do to avoid law enforcement. Third, examining the business aspect of methamphetamine markets may shed more light on gender equality or inequality. Researchers can compare the quality, amount, and sale prices of methamphetamine from different markets to determine if men and women are selling product for the same amount. Similarly, participants report varied prices for a box of Sudafed. Exploring the practice of Sudafed box buying, which members are compensated at higher rates, and any gendered differences within this facet of methamphetamine markets. Additionally, future work can compare methamphetamine markets to other kinds of markets. The lack of hierarchy found in methamphetamine markets is in stark contrast to other drug markets. The lack of strictly hierarchically structured markets may be due to my sampling approach, but, when asked about other markets that they knew of, participants did not identify any markets that are rigidly structured like cocaine or heroin markets. Future research can investigate whether these rigidly hierarchically structured markets exist for methamphetamine, and compare them to other drug markets. 152 Future research can also examine levels of trust and violence among members. Members who do use violence are in the minority but additional research can better explain why they use violence, who they exert it upon, and reasons why they felt violence was needed. Lastly, future projects can focus on the law enforcement side of this drug market. Examining the training police receive regarding methamphetamine markets, how they implement this training, what their informal practices are, how they operate, and what they think indicates methamphetamine activity would be an interesting counterpart to current research focusing on methamphetamine market involved participants. Conclusion Methamphetamine laboratory incidents have been increasing nationwide (United States Government Accountability Office, 2013). After a steady increase in the late 2000s, Michigan is finally seeing a small decrease in laboratory incidences (US Drug Enforcement Agency, 2012). Rates of methamphetamine use and manufacturing are, however, still exceptionally high (US Drug Enforcement Administration, 2012). Markets are generally small in scale and consist of friends or family members. Within markets, men and women experience unprecedented levels of equality compared to other studies of methamphetamine markets (Jenkot, 2011; Morgan & Joe, 1996) and cocaine markets (Griffin & Rodriguez, 2008; Jacobs & Miller, 1998b; Maher, 1997; Ratner, 1993). Women and men are both easily able to enter the methamphetamine after becoming a user. Both men and women are able to advance as high as they choose within the market, with the cook being the highest attainable role. Men and women advance in similar ways, such as through others teaching them how to perform a certain role or volunteering for a particular task. Women, however, are more likely than men to be volunteered or recruited for a task. This is an interesting finding because it indicates that men have more agency in advancing 153 in the market while some women are viewed as accessories until they can be sent on an errand, at which point they are ordered to do so. Similarly, men negotiate more and use more force to get their own way. Women admit that it often does not occur to them to negotiate for more money or methamphetamine or to bargain for a higher position in the market. Finally, men and women use a plethora of strategies to avoid contact with law enforcement. Methamphetamine market members use more strategies avoiding police while they are getting ingredients and cooking the substance. Methamphetamine use and production is described as epidemic in the United States. However, there has been little research exploring how individuals obtain ingredients given current legislation, how the markets operate, and the opportunities for women within the markets. Research on these areas is needed to better combat the methamphetamine problem and improve legislation controlling the necessary ingredients. 154 APPENDICES 155 Appendix A: Tables and Figures Table 1: Characteristics of Meth Market Involved Population N Total % N Male % N Female % Age 18-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-50 51-60 61+ 10 6 13 6 8 9 0 19.2 11.5 25 11.5 15.4 17.3 0 5 2 5 4 3 6 0 20 8 20 16 12 24 0 5 4 8 2 5 3 0 18.5 14.8 29.6 7.4 18.5 11.1 0 Race White Nonwhite 49 3 94.2 5.8 22 3 88 12 27 0 100 0 Education Less than HS GED High school diploma Some college College degree More than college 9 13 13 12 4 1 17.3 25 25 23.1 7.7 1.9 2 9 5 6 3 0 8 36 20 24 12 0 7 4 8 6 1 1 25.9 14.8 29.6 22.2 3.7 3.7 156 Table 1 (con’t) Primary County of Involvement Allegan Barry Branch Calhoun Jackson Kalamazoo Shiawassee Van Buren Wayne Wexford Other state Legal Involvement Probation/Parole Drug Court Narcotics Anonymous None 1 1 7 13 4 15 1 6 1 1 2 1.9 1.9 13.5 25 7.7 28.8 1.9 11.5 1.9 1.9 3.8 1 0 2 4 2 10 0 6 0 0 0 4 0 8 16 8 40 0 24 0 0 0 0 1 5 9 2 5 1 0 1 1 2 0 3.7 18.5 33.3 7.4 18.5 3.7 0 3.7 3.7 7.4 9 18 17.3 34.6 1 8 4 32 8 10 29.6 37 14 11 26.9 21.2 9 7 36 28 5 4 18.5 14.8 157 Table 2: Participant’s Primary Role by Gender Cooks Helpers Dealers Boxers Users Others Total Male 56% (14) 0% (0) 8% (2) 16% (4) 16% (4) 4% (1) 25 (100%) Female 48.1% (13) 18.5% (5) 0% (0) 11.1% (3) 18.5% (5) 3.7% (1) 27 (100%) Total 51.9% (27) 9.6% (5) 3.8% (2) 13.5% (7) 17.3% (9) 3.8% (2) 52 (100%) 158 Table 3: Comprehensive List of Male Participants and Market Information 101 102 103 104 Primary Role Boxer Cook Cook Cook 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 Cook Cook Cook Dealer Cook Prof. Boxer User Cook Other Roles Cook, Helper, Sell Helper, Boxer, Sell Helper, Boxer, Sell Helper, Boxer, Sell Helper, Prof. Boxer, Sell Helper, Boxer, Sell Helper, Boxer, Sell Boxer Helper, Boxer, Sell Sell Helper, Sell Helper, Boxer, Sell 113 114 115 Boxer Dealer User Sell Helper, Boxer, Sell Boxer Family Friend Friend No No No 116 117 Helper, Boxer, Sell Helper, Boxer, Sell Friend and family Friend and family No Yes 118 Cook Cook Drives cooks on errands None Family No 119 Cook Friend No 120 121 122 123 124 125 Cook Cook User User Cook Boxer Helper, Boxer, Sell Helper, Prof. Boxer, Sell Helper, Boxer, Sell Boxer Boxer Helper, Boxer, Sell Helper, Sell Never used Male family member Friend and family Friend Friend Friend Friend and family Friend and family Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Male friend Male friend Male friend Female friend Male friend Male friend Market Type Family Friend Friend Friend Hierarchical No No No Yes Friend Friend Family Friend Family Friend Friend Friend Yes No No No No Yes No Yes Bold participants are in large markets 159 Introduced by Male friend Male friend Male friend Male friend Male family member Male friend Tried it at party Male friend Female partner Male friend Male friend Male friend Male family member Male friend Male friend Male family member Male friend Table 4: Comprehensive List of Female Participants and Market Information 201 202 Primary Role Other Roles Market Type Cook Helper, Boxer, Sell Friend Cook Helper, Boxer, Sell Friend Friend Cook Cook Helper Helper User Cook Boxer Helper Cook Boxer, Sell Helper, Prof. Boxer, Sell Helper, Boxer, Sell Boxer Boxer, Sell Boxer Helper, Boxer, Sell Sell None Helper, Boxer, Sell Hierarchical Introduced by Yes Male friend Yes Male friend Male family No member 203 Helper 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 Friend Friend Friend Friend Friend Friend Friend Friend Family No Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes 213 User Boxer Friend Yes 214 Cook Family No 215 216 217 Cook Cook User Helper, Boxer, Sell Helper, Prof. Boxer, Sell Helper, Boxer, Sell Helper, Sell Friend Friend Friend No Yes Yes 218 219 Cook User Helper, Boxer, Sell Family Boxer Family Yes Yes 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 Cook Helper Dates cook Boxer Boxer User Cook Cook Helper, Boxer, Sell Boxer, Sell Boxer, User Helper, Sell None Boxer Helper, Boxer, Sell Helper, Sell No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Family Friend Friend Family Family Friend Family Friend Bold participants are in large markets 160 Male friend Male partner Male partner Male friend Male friend Male friend Female friend Male partner Male friend Male family member Female family member Male friend Male partner Male partner Male family member Male partner Female family member Male friend Male friend Male friend Never used Male friend Female friend Male friend Figure 1: Number of Methamphetamine Lab Incidents in Michigan 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Source: US Drug Enforcement Agency Methamphetamine Lab Incidents, 2004-2011 161 Figure 2: Snowball Sampling Chart 201 202 211 212 214 107 215 220 216 109 218 222 110 112 106 108 111 224 113 219 125 225 115 123 203 205 204 213 104 221 206 208 207 209 210 101 217 103 102 105 162 223 120 121 114 226 124 116 227 117 118 119 122 Figure 3: Overlapping Roles of Participants Cook Sell 211 (n=1; 1.9%) 217 (n=1; 1.9%) 111, 125, 203, 207, 221, 223 (n=6; 11.5%) 108, 110, 113, 210 (n=4; 7.7%) Helper 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 112, 114, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121, 124, 201, 202, 204, 205, 209, 212, 214, 215, 216, 218, 220, 226 (n=28; 53.8%) 227 (n=1; 1.9%) 118, 122, 123, 206, 208, 213, 219, 222, 224, 225 (n=10; 19.2%) Bold participant numbers signify members who never used methamphetamine 163 Get or help get ingredients Figure 4: Market Structure of Participant’s Primary Market Friend based Connected to other markets 101, 113, 223 (n=3; 5.8%) 102, 103, 111, 114, 115, 203, 204, 208, 225 (n=9; 17.3%) 105, 120, 122, 217, 221 (n=5; 9.6%) 106, 108, 116, 119, 121, 123, 207, 209, 210, 215 (n=10; 19.2%) 104, 110, 112, 117, 124, 125, 201, 202, 205, 206, 211, 213, 216, 222, 227 (n=15; 28.8%) 212, 218, 219, 224, 226 (n=5; 9.6%) Family based, nonhierarchical, and not connected to other markets Hierarchical 107, 109, 118, 214, 220 (n=5; 9.6%) Bold participant numbers signify large markets Underlined participant numbers signify professional boxers 164 Figure 5: Relationship to Individual Who First Introduced Participant to Methamphetamine Female Female partner Never used, friend 118, 224 109 104, 123, (n=1; 1.9%) (n=2; 3.8%) 210, 226 (n=4; 7.7%) Not introduced through person 107 (n=1;1.9%) Female family member 214, 220 (n=2; 3.8%) Male family member 105, 113, 116, 119, 203, 213, 218 (n=7; 13.5%) Male partner 205, 206, 211, 216, 217, 219 (n=6; 12%) Male friend 101, 102, 103, 106, 108, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 117, 120, 121, 122, 124, 125, 201, 202, 204, 207, 208, 209, 212, 215, 221, 222, 223, 225, 227 (n=29; 55.8%) Bold participant numbers signify membership in family based markets 165 Figure 6: Men doing Gender Take advantage of being male 112 (N=1; 4%) Act tough 110, 114, 116, 124 (N=5; 20%) 101, 104, 109, 111, 117, 118, 119, 120, 123, 125 (N=10; 40%) Bold participant numbers signify cooks Underlined participant numbers signify membership in only friend based networks 166 Figure 7: Women doing Gender Take advantage of being female 207, 218, 220, 226 (N=4; 14.8%) 203, 217 (N=2; 7.4%) 201, 212, 213, 214 (N=4; 14.8%) Act tough Act feminine 202, 204, 209, 210, 215, 219, 222 (N=7; 25.9%) Bold participant number signify cooks Underlined participant numbers signify members who are in friend based networks 167 Figure 8: Agency Control 122, 203, 206, 213, 214, 223, 224, 227 (N=8; 15.4%) 102, 108, 115, 118, 123, 201, 202, 205, 210, 217, 221, 222, 225 (N=13; 25%) 109, 121, 125, 204 (N=4; 7.7%) 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 111, 112, 113, 117, 119, 120, 124, 208, 209, 212, 215, 216, 218, 220, 226 (N=20; 38.5%) Rebel 219 (N=1; 1.9%) 101, 116 (N=2; 7.4%) Bargain 110, 114 (n=2; 7.4%) Bold participant numbers signify cooks Underlined participant numbers signify members who are in hierarchically structured markets 168 Figure 9: Arrest Avoidance Strategy Categories Getting ingredients Cooking 110, 111, 205, 215 (n=4; 7.7%) 101, 103, 121, 204, 206, 207, 209, 210, 223, 102, 203, 227 225, 226 (n=3; 5.8%) (n=11; 21.2%) 113, 115, 224 (n=3; 5.8%)105, 222 (n=1; 1.9%) 108 (n=1; 1.9%) 109, 116, 117, 119, 212, 220 (n=6; 11.5%) 124, 202, 214 (n=3; 5.8%) Selling 217 (n=1; 1.9%) Hiding in car 122, 213 (n=2; 3.8%) 104, 105, 106, 112, 120, 201, 216, 218 (n=8; 15.4%) 221 (n=1; 1.9%) 107 (n=1; 1.9%) 202 (n=1; 1.9%) 169 Figure 10: Context of Participants’ Arrest Learned strategies from arrest 201, 205 (n=2, 6.3%) Traffic stop 221 (n=1, 3.1%) No information 125, 207, 208 (n=3, 9.4%) Using no strategies 105, 107, 114, 117, 122, 202, 209, 211, 217, 222 (n=10, 31.3%) Explosion 124, 227 (n=2, 6.3%) Unusual circumstance 101, 111, 116 (n=3, 9.4%) Using regular strategies 102, 104, 204, 212, 218, 220 (n=6, 18.8%) Snitched on 103, 112, 215, 223, 226 (n=5, 15.6%) Bold participant numbers signify cooks 170 Appendix B: Consent Forms and Interview Instruments Consent Form for Methamphetamine Market Involved Individuals RESEARCH PARTICIPANT INFORMATION AND CONSENT FORM For men and women involved in methamphetamine markets You are being asked to participate in a research study. Researchers are required to provide a consent form to inform you about the research study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to explain risks and benefits of participation, and to empower you to make an informed decision. You should feel free to ask the researchers any questions you may have. Study Title: Qualitative Study of Pathways to Involvement and Law Enforcement Avoidance Strategies in Methamphetamine Markets Researcher and Title: Dr. Merry Morash, Professor, and Julie Yingling, Graduate Student Department and Institution: School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University Address and Contact Information: Julie Yingling 560 Baker Hall School of Criminal Justice Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 Tel: 517-432-3053 Email: yinglin4@msu.edu Merry Morash, Ph.D. 560 Baker Hall School of Criminal Justice Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 Tel: 517-432-3053 Email: morashm@msu.edu 1. PURPOSE OF RESEARCH You are being asked to participate in a research study of methamphetamine markets, pathways to involvement, and people’s strategies for avoiding police detection. You have been selected as a possible participant in this study because you have experience with either making methamphetamine, distributing it, or both. From this study, the researchers hope to learn the different ways men and women get involved in methamphetamine markets, the different jobs available to them, as well as the strategies they use to avoid police detection. Your participation in this study will take about 2 hours. If you are under 18, you cannot be in this study. In the study, up to 120 people with either involvement in production or distribution or expert knowledge about how production and distribution usually are accomplished are being asked to participate. 171 2. WHAT YOU WILL DO If you voluntarily agree to participate in this study, you will be interviewed in a private setting. Your responses to questions will be entered into a computer file that is stored on a server at Michigan State University. If you would like a brief summary of findings, you can provide an address (mail or email), and one will be sent to you after the study is completed. 3. POTENTIAL BENEFITS You will not directly benefit from your participation in this study. However, your participation in this study may contribute to the understanding of how people get involved in methamphetamine markets and the different ways they manage to avoid police. 4. POTENTIAL RISKS One risk of taking part in the research is that if a law enforcement official found that you took part in the study, she or he may assume that you are currently involved in illegal activity or may attribute past illegal activity to you. Also, some questions may make you feel uncomfortable or recall upsetting times. If you find questions upsetting or feel your answers will incriminate you, you can skip answer those questions. Also, a list of local sources of help, such as hotlines and counseling centers, will be provided to you. 5. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY The data for this project will be kept confidential. Your name will not be kept with the data. Interviews will be conducted only in private areas. Your answers will not be revealed to law enforcement officers, treatment centers, probation, or parole officers, or any other people except for the research staff (a graduate student and a professor) and staff of the Human Subjects Protection Program at Michigan State University, who can examine the data to be sure all steps have been taken to protect confidentiality and security of the data. Your confidentiality will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. During the interview, the data will be entered via laptop through a secure site on a Michigan State University server that is only accessible by password. It will not be stored on the interviewer’s laptop. Only the Primary Investigator and Secondary Investigator will have the password to access the data. No names will be entered into the computer or stored with the data. The data will be assigned ID numbers that do not connect to any name, but that indicate whether the participant was male or female. Unconnected to the data, the interviewer will keep a record of the number of people 172 from each county who are interviewed. The data will be transferred from the university server to electronic computer files on password protected computers in the interviewer’s home office and in Professor Morash’s secure office in 336 Nisbet Building, 1407 S. Harrison Rd., E. Lansing, MI, which is on the campus of Michigan State University. It is expected that analysis will be completed by June, 2014, and the data will be stored for three additional years. There will be no way to associate names with the data. Professor Morash and Julie Yingling will have access to the data. Staff of the Michigan State University Internal Review Board, which is responsible for the protection of people who take part in research, also will have access to the data. The results of this study will be presented in a doctoral dissertation, for academic publications, and for presentations at professional meetings, but the identities of all research participants will remain confidential. The dissertation and publications as well as presentations will be available to any person, including staff of the Internal Review Board, which is responsible for protecting the rights of human subjects. To help us protect your privacy, we have applied for a Certificate of Confidentiality from the United States National Institutes of Health. With this Certificate, the researchers cannot be forced by US courts to disclose information that may identify you, even by a court subpoena, in any US federal, state, or local civil, criminal, administrative, legislative, or other proceedings. The researchers will use the Certificate to resist any demands for information that would identify you, except as explained below. You should understand that a Certificate of Confidentiality does not prevent you or a member of your family from voluntarily releasing information about yourself or your involvement in this research. If an insurer, employer, or other person obtains your written consent to receive research information, then the researchers may not use the Certificate to withhold that information. 6. YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW Participation is voluntary. Refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You have the right to say no. You may change your mind at any time and withdraw. You may choose not to answer specific questions or to stop participating at any time. Choosing not to participate or withdrawing from this study will not be communicated to any person. 7. COSTS AND COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY 173 You will receive $50 Visa gift card for your participation in the study after you have finished the interview. 8. CONTACT INFORMATION If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or to report any distress, please contact the researcher (Julie Yingling, 560 Baker Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, 484-5576815, or email: yinglin4@msu.edu). If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-4324503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at Olds Hall, 408 West Circle Drive #207, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824. 12. DOCUMENTATION OF INFORMED CONSENT. By completing this survey, you are voluntarily agreeing to participate in the study. 174 Interview Instrument for Methamphetamine Market Involved Individuals QUALITATIVE STUDY OF PATHWAYS TO INVOLVEMENT AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AVOIDANCE STRATEGIES IN METHAMPHETAMINE MARKETS For men and women involved in methamphetamine markets Interview Instrument There are 3 parts to the interview. By going through these three parts, the goal is to end up with an understanding of your experiences helping to get methamphetamine produced or given to users. Part 1 includes questions about yourself, how the production and distribution of drugs were set up, and the actual use of meth while these things were happening. Part 2 includes questions about how you got involved in the market and the options available to you to be involved in different ways. The last part includes questions about how you tried to avoid police detection and arrest as well as some questions about differences between men and women involved in producing and selling methamphetamine. By interviewing people who have made money, gotten services or help, or gotten some material things through involvement in obtaining raw materials, making meth, or selling it, this study has the aim of increasing knowledge of how people get involved in meth markets and how they manage to do this type of work. PART 1 Part 1 questions are designed to obtain some information about you, general information about how meth markets are set up, and your history with meth. Demographics First, I’d like to get some general information about you. Age What age range are you in? 18-25 | 26-30 | 31-35 | 36-40 | 41-50 | 51-60 | 61+ Education What’s the highest level of schooling you’ve completed? Gender 175 County Markets I’d like to understand the market. Can you identify all the people involved in the market, not by name, but by their role when the market was first set up? If there were changes over time with people’s involvement or role, can you explain to me how their role changed? Can you identify all the people involved in the market at the last time you were involved with it? Can you tell me who was in charge, who worked under who, who just did what others said, and any hierarchy that existed? How were all the people related? Were people siblings? Friends? Dating? Married? Who in this network used the drug? Meth Made and Sold Now I have some questions about how meth is made and sold. How does meth get produced and sold, from beginning to end? Do you view this operation or process as a market? If not, what do you call it? [If not, terms the study participant used will be used in subsequent questions.] How was the drug market set up? How many individuals were involved? Where did the ingredients come from? How many people were involved in getting them? How was it cooked? How many people were involved in this? Did they do it alone? Were others around to help out or hang out? How was the substance sold? Or given away for free or exchanged for things? Was anyone in charge of the people involved in getting ingredients, making it, distributing it? Do you know how that person got that job? How was this person identified as the leader? How did people feel about him/her being the leader? Was meth produced continuously? Where there down times? Why? 176 People Where there people who would move in and out of involvement? Where there some people who were always around? Where they helping or just hanging out? Cooking Where was the cooking process set up? Did it ever move locations? Why? What makes a good location? Who decided where it would be made? Meth Quality Do you know how pure the meth was? How and where was it sold? Who decided that? How much did it cost? 1/4 gram? 1/2 gram? 1 gram? 1 ounce? Speed? Base? Ice/crystal? Drug Use Now I have some questions about drug use and whether you or others used meth while involved. Did anyone use meth while involved in making it, selling it, or getting ingredients? Who used it? Did they use it while performing specific tasks? Did you use meth while doing your tasks to get it produced and distributed? What influenced you to use it? How often and how much did you use? Is it the only drug you regularly used? If not, what others? How were you introduced to meth? 177 Is your use related to your involvement in the market? Did you start using as a result of being involved in the production and selling or meth, or did your use influence your desire to get involved? distribution of PART 2 Part two asks about different roles you had, how you got them, and the options you had while involved. Roles Now I have some questions about the different roles involved in the meth process. I’ll be asking questions about the roles that you had as well as others around you. What different things have you done to help get meth produced or get it to people who wanted to use it? Make deliveries? Buy or get ingredients? Help a friend buy or get ingredients? Drop off the product for someone? Run errands that helped others who were selling, cooking, etc? Sell the drug? Help cook? Cook? Connect meth buyers to dealers? Weighed or bagged meth? Lived where meth was made? Dispose of trash? Other? What did you get in exchange for doing these things? Money? How much? Food? Friendship? Sex? 178 Drugs? How much? What drug? Anything else? Do you know if it is common for women trade sex for meth? Jobs What other jobs were available to you? What jobs were not available to you? How did you feel about the jobs that are available or unavailable to you? How satisfied were you with what you got out of doing these jobs? Were there any opportunities to take on more responsibility or move up to a higher position? Did you work anywhere else (legal or illegal work)? Where at? How long did you worked there? How much did you make per week or per month at that job? Did you get other things for your work? What usually leads up to someone getting out of these sorts of activities? What was a typical work day/night like for you? What different tasks did you do? Did any problems typically arise? If there was a problem, who do you tell? What did he or she do? What was your relationship with others involved in the market? Pathways Introduction How did you become aware of the market? You said you were involved in the roles of: _________________ How were you introduced to those roles? Family? Friends? Boyfriend/girlfriend? Getting Involved Was it easy to become involved? What sorts of things did you have to do? Were you accepted by the others right away? What factors led you to wanting to get involved? Excitement? 179 Money? Fewer working hours than a regular job? Support drug habit? Anything else? Did you always know you were helping make or distribute meth? Is it possible to trick people into getting boxes for you? Arrest Have you ever been arrested? How many times? What for? At this point, fill out the life calendar identifying when they got involved, different experiences that happened while involved, points of arrest, and when they changed roles within the market. Agency The next questions are about how in control you felt. Control How much control did you have over the job you worked? For example, if you sold meth, did you have the option to sell more for more money, or was the amount you sell highly regulated and controlled? Did you feel like you were in control of your decisions while working in the drug market? Did you feel like you could do what you wanted while working in the drug market? Rebel Did you ever rebel or resist your assigned role in the drug market? Why did you do this? How did you do this? What were the outcomes? Bargain Did you ever bargain or negotiate with those in charge? Like do something or put up with something to get something else in return? Did the other person know you were actually bargaining? 180 What sorts of things did you bargain with? What were the outcomes? Did you ultimately get what you wanted? Treating Others Did you treat some people differently than others? Why did you do this? Was it to get something? Did it work? Coping with Treatment How did you cope with the ways you were treated? How effective were your coping strategies? What were the outcomes? PART 3 The last part asks different ways you avoided police, how being a man or a woman affected your strategies for doing this, and the rewards of your experiences. Arrest Avoidance This section is about different ways you avoided police in all your roles. When performing your jobs, were you ever at risk of being discovered by police? Strategies What kinds of things did you do to avoid police finding you or noticing you? How effective were they? Did other people use these same strategies? What are some other strategies you used to avoid police detection? What are some other strategies other people you knew used to avoid police detection? Were there different strategies for people in different positions? Were there different strategies for men and women? Or for younger or older people? Or other groups of people? 181 Do you use certain strategies based on who you are working with (friends vs. family)? How do they differ? Police Stereotypes Did you think police made assumptions about you or stereotyped you? In what ways? As a man/woman, did you ever play into stereotypes to get what you want or escape police? What did you do? Gender Gender: This next section is about how being a man or woman affected your experiences or influenced the strategies you used. Female Did you ever take advantage of being a woman and get things from people or get people to do things for you? As a woman, did you ever have to act tougher than you are or more like a man to be treated better? How did you do this? How did it work? In what ways were you treated better? As a woman, did you ever have to act more feminine than you were or more like a stereotypical woman to be treated better? How did you do this? How did it work? In what ways were you treated better? F- Roles Only for Women As a woman, were there any things you could do in the market that men couldn’t? Certain jobs? Were there some arrest avoidance strategies that you could use that men couldn’t? What were they? Were there some arrest avoidance strategies that men used but you couldn’t? What were they? Meth Arrest If arrested for meth related crime: Were you using any arrest avoidance strategies when you got arrested? Had you used that strategy before? Why didn’t your strategies work? Did you use that same strategy again? Did you change strategies? 182 Male Did you ever take advantage of being a man and get things from people or get people to do things for you? As a man, is acting tough part of your job? How did you act tough? Did you ever have to follow through and be tough? Can you tell me about some times when you had to be tough? As a man, were there any things you could do in the market that women couldn’t? Certain jobs? Were there some arrest avoidance strategies that you could use that women couldn’t? What were they? Were there some arrest avoidance strategies that women used but you couldn’t? What were they? Meth Arrest If arrested for meth related crime: Were you using any arrest avoidance strategies when you got arrested? Had you used that strategy before? Why didn’t your strategies work? Did you use that same strategy again? Did you change strategies? Rewards Finally, I’m interested in the rewards and benefits you experienced while involved in the methamphetamine market. Extra Money What were some things you can do to earn extra money or benefits in the market? What were some rewards to your job? Like Least and Most What did you like the least about your involvement in the meth market? What did you like best about your involvement in the meth market? Misc Is there anything else about your experiences with meth that we missed? 183 Life Calendar Age Situation/Circumstance 184 Consent Form for Methamphetamine Market Experts RESEARCH PARTICIPANT INFORMATION AND CONSENT FORM For professional experts You are being asked to participate in a research study. Researchers are required to provide a consent form to inform you about the research study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to explain risks and benefits of participation, and to empower you to make an informed decision. You should feel free to ask the researchers any questions you may have. Study Title: Qualitative Study of Pathways to Involvement and Law Enforcement Avoidance Strategies in Methamphetamine Markets Researcher and Title: Dr. Merry Morash, Professor, and Julie Yingling, Graduate Student Department and Institution: School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University Address and Contact Information: Julie Yingling 560 Baker Hall School of Criminal Justice Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 Tel: 517-432-3053 Email: yinglin4@msu.edu Merry Morash, Ph.D. 560 Baker Hall School of Criminal Justice Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 Tel: 517-432-9235 Email: morashm@msu.edu 1. PURPOSE OF RESEARCH You are being asked to participate in a research study of methamphetamine markets, pathways to involvement, and people’s strategies for avoiding police detection. You have been selected as a possible participant in this study because you are involved in some way with the methamphetamine task force community coalitions. From this study, the researchers hope to learn the different ways men and women get involved in methamphetamine markets, the different jobs available to them, as well as the strategies they use to avoid police detection. Your participation in this study will take about 1 hour. If you are under 18, you cannot be in this study. In the entire study, 20 experts are being asked to participate. 2. WHAT YOU WILL DO If you voluntarily agree to participate in this study, you will be interviewed in a private setting. Your responses will be typed into a computer file. If you would like a 185 brief summary of findings, you can provide an address (mail or email), and one will be sent to you after the study is completed. 3. POTENTIAL BENEFITS You will not directly benefit from your participation in this study. However, your participation in this study may contribute to the understanding of how people get involved in methamphetamine markets and the different ways they try to avoid detection. 4. POTENTIAL RISKS Participation in this study has no known risks to you. 5. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY Your confidentiality will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your name will not be kept with the data. Interviews will be conducted only in private areas. The names of experts interviewed will be kept in a locked file cabinet in Professor Merry Morash’s secure office at Michigan State University. Once the 20 experts have been interviewed, the list of their names will be destroyed. Information about you will be kept confidential. During the interview, the data will be entered into a word file on a password protected laptop computer. No names will be entered or stored with the data. The data will be transferred to electronic computer files on password protected computers in the interviewer’s home office and in Professor Morash’s secure office in 336 Nisbet Building, 1407 S. Harrison Rd., E. Lansing, MI, which is on the campus of Michigan State University. It is expected that analysis will be completed by June, 2014, and the data will be stored for three additional years. There will be no way to associate names with the data. Professor Morash and Julie Yingling will have access to the data. Staff of the Michigan State University Institutional Review Board, which is responsible for the protection of people who take part in research, also will have access to the data. The researchers, a graduate student and a professor, are the only ones who will have access to the data. Also, staff of the Human Subjects Program at Michigan State University can examine the data to be sure all steps have been taken to protect confidentiality and security of the data. 186 The results of this study will be presented in a doctoral dissertation, for academic publications, and for presentations at professional meetings, but the identities of all research participants will remain confidential. The dissertation and publications as well as presentations will be available to any person, including staff of the Internal Review Board, which is responsible for protecting the rights of human subjects. To help us protect your privacy, we have applied for a Certificate of Confidentiality from the United States National Institutes of Health. With this Certificate, the researchers cannot be forced by US courts to disclose information that may identify you, even by a court subpoena, in any US federal, state, or local civil, criminal, administrative, legislative, or other proceedings. The researchers will use the Certificate to resist any demands for information that would identify you, except as explained below. You should understand that a Certificate of Confidentiality does not prevent you or a member of your family from voluntarily releasing information about yourself or your involvement in this research. If an insurer, employer, or other person obtains your written consent to receive research information, then the researchers may not use the Certificate to withhold that information. 6. YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW Participation is voluntary. Refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You have the right to say no. You may change your mind at any time and withdraw. You may choose not to answer specific questions or to stop participating at any time. Choosing not to participate or withdrawing from this study will not be communicated to any person. 7. COSTS AND COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY You will not receive money or any other form of compensation for participating in this study. 8. CONTACT INFORMATION If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or to report an injury (i.e. physical, psychological, social, financial, or otherwise), please contact the researcher (Julie Yingling, 560 Baker Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, 484-557-6815, or email: yinglin4@msu.edu). If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a 187 complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-4324503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at Olds Hall, 408 West Circle Drive #207, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824. 12. DOCUMENTATION OF INFORMED CONSENT. Your signature below means that you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study. ________________________________________ __________________ Signature Date You will be given a copy of this form to keep. 188 Interview Instrument for Methamphetamine Market Experts QUALITATIVE STUDY OF PATHWAYS TO INVOLVEMENT AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AVOIDANCE STRATEGIES IN METHAMPHETAMINE MARKETS For coalition experts Interview Instrument There are 3 parts to the interview. By going through these three parts, the goal is to end up with an understanding of people’s experiences in the methamphetamine market. Part 1 includes questions about yourself and how meth markets are structured, to your knowledge. Part 2 includes questions about how people generally get involved in the market and different roles they perform. The last part includes questions about how people avoid police detection and arrest as well as some questions about gender differences in these strategies. By interviewing professionals who work with people who have made money, gotten services or help, or gotten some material things through involvement in obtaining raw materials, making meth, or selling it, this study has the aim of increasing knowledge of how men and women get involved in meth markets and the different strategies they use to avoid arrest. Some questions ask about people who were involved in the process of making and distributing meth. Do not provide names of these people, but rather tell me examples or themes from your experience. PART 1 Part 1 questions are designed to obtain some information about you and general information about how meth markets are set up. Demographics and Background: First, I’d like to get some general information about you. What is your occupation? How long have you been working in this capacity? What is your role, if any, with the anti-methamphetamine coalition? How long have you been involved? 189 How many markets have you investigated or how many people involved do you know through the course of your work on methamphetamine? How much contact do you have meth-involved individuals? How much do they talk about the market with you? How often do you observe them engaged in meth market activities? Markets: Now I have some questions about how meth is made and sold. How does meth get produced and sold, from beginning to end? Do you view this operation or process as a market? If not, what do you call it? [If not, terms the expert used will be used in subsequent questions.] Probes: How was the drug market set up? Where do the ingredients come from? How do people get them? How was it cooked? How many people were involved in this? Did they do it alone? Were others around to help out or hang out? How was the substance sold? Who used the substance? Where are some of the places where labs are set up? What are some of the more popular locations? What do cooks look for in a lab location? Do you know how pure the meth was? How and where was it sold? How much did it cost? 1/4 gram? 1/2 gram? 1 gram? 1 ounce? Speed? Base? 190 Ice/crystal? PART 2 Part two asks about different roles in the market, how they are achieved, and the options available to men and women. Role: Now I have some questions about the different roles involved in the meth process. I’ll be asking questions about the roles that you had as well as others around you. What different roles/jobs do men generally perform within the market? Are there any roles that are often unavailable to men? Any roles that are available, but hard to get for men? What roles/jobs do women generally perform? Are there any roles that are often unavailable to women? Any roles that are available, but hard to get for women? Pathways: Now I have some questions about how people were introduced to meth markets. Do you know how people are generally introduced to meth? Friends? Family? Do you know how people are recruited to meth markets? Friends? Family? Do you know if people generally get involved in the market after using it? Or do people use it as a result of being involved in the market? Do people always know they are a part of the market- that they are helping to make or distribute meth? PART 3 The last part asks different ways people avoid the police and how being a man or a woman affects the strategies utilized. 191 Police avoidance techniques: This section is about different ways people avoid police. What are some common strategies people use to avoid getting caught by police? How effective are they? What are some of the least effective strategies? What are some of the most effective strategies? Are different strategies used by people in different positions in the market? (Cook vs. medicine purchasing) Were there different strategies for men and women? Or for younger or older people? Or other groups of people? Do men or women ever rely on stereotypes of gender or anything else to try and go undetected? Are there any things women could do in the market that men couldn’t? Are there any things men could do in the market that women couldn’t? 192 REFERENCES 193 REFERENCES Anglin, M. D., Burke, C., Perrochet, B., Stamper, E., & Dawud-Noursi, S. (2000). History of the Methamphetamine Problem. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 32(2), 137–141. Asanbe, C. B., Hall, C., & Bolden, C. D. (2008). The methamphetamine home: Psychological impact on preschoolers in rural Tennessee. The Journal of Rural Health, 24(3), 229–235. Babcock, L., & Laschever, S. (2003). Women don’t ask: negotiation and the gender divide. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. Baskin, D., Sommers, I., & Fagan, J. (1992). The political economy of female violent street crime. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 20, 401. Belknap, J. (2006). Invisible woman: Gender, crime and justice (3rd ed.). Australia: Thompson Wadsworth. Bovett, R. (2006). Meth Epidemic Solutions. North Dakota Law Review, 82, 1195–1215. Brecht, M., O’Brien, A., von Mayrhauser, C., & Anglin, M. (2004). Methamphetamine use behaviors and gender differences. Addictive Behaviors, 29(1), 89–106. Brown, J. A., & Hohman, M. (2006). The impact of methamphetamine use on parenting. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 6(1-2), 63–88. Chesney-Lind, M. (2006). Patriarchy, crime, and justice: Feminist criminology in an era of backlash. Feminist Criminology, 1, 6–26. Cho, A. K. (1990). Ice: A New Dosage Form of an Old Drug. Science, 249(4969), 631–634. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Curtis, R., Friedman, S. R., Neaigus, A., Jose, B., Goldstein, M., & Ildefonso, G. (1995). Streetlevel drug markets: Network structure and HIV risk. Social Networks, 17(3-4), 229–249. Curtis, R., & Wendel, T. (2000). Toward the development of a typology of illegal drug markets. In M. Hough & M. Natarajan (Eds.), Illegal Drug Markets: From Research to Prevention Policy (pp. 121–152). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. 194 Daly, K., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1988). Feminism and criminology. Justice Quarterly, 5(4), 497– 538. Darke, S., Kaye, S., McKetin, R., & Duflou, J. (2008). Major physical and psychological harms of methamphetamine use. Drug and Alcohol Review, 27(3), 253–262. DeKeseredy, W. S., & Schwartz, M. D. (2009). Dangerous exits: Escaping abusive relationships in rural America. New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press. Denton, B., & O’Malley, P. M. (1999). Gender, trust and business: Women drug dealers in the illicit economy. British Journal of Criminology, 39(4), 513–530. Department of Health and Human Services. (2006). Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) Highlights – 2005. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Retrieved from http://wwwdasis.samhsa.gov/teds05/tedshi2k5_web.pdf Department of Justice. (2009). Pseudoephedrine smurfing fuels surge in large-scale methamphetamine production in California. National Drug Intelligence Center. Retrieved from www.oregondec.org/CSPSC/002a-NDIC-report.pdf Deutch, H. (2011). The methamphetamine summit: A process in collaboration and decision making : a guide for law enforcement, community policing advocates, and community stakeholders. Washingon, DC: US Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://cops.usdoj.gov/Publications/e041119351_2011meth-summit.pdf Dighton, D. (2004). The festering problem of methamphetamine in Illinois. Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. Retrieved from http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/Compiler/winter.spring%2004.pdf Dorn, N., Murji, K., & South, N. (1992). Traffickers: Drug markets and law enforcement. London: Routledge. Draucker, C. B., Martsolf, D. S., Ross, R., & Rusk, T. B. (2007). Theoretical sampling and category development in grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 17, 1137–1148. Drug and Alcohol Services Information System. (2006). Methamphetamine/Amphetamine Treatment Admissions in Urban and Rural Areas: 2004. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Retrieved from http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k6/methRuralTX/methRuralTX.htm Dunlap, E., Johnson, B. D., & Maher, L. (1997). Female crack sellers in New York City. Women & Criminal Justice, 8(4), 25–55. 195 Edmunds, M., Hough, M., & Urquia, N. (1996). Tackling drug markets: An analysis of six London sites. London: Home Office: Police Research Group. Farst, K., Duncan, J. M., Moss, M., Ray, R. M., Kokoska, E., & James, L. P. (2007). Methamphetamine exposure presenting as caustic ingestions in children. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 49(3), 341–343. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.05.020 Fetterman, D. M. (1998). Ethnography: Step by step. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Freedman, D., Thornton, A., Camburn, D., Alwin, D., & Young-DeMarco, L. (1988). The life history calendar: A technique for collecting retrospective data. Sociological Methodology, 18, 37. Frosch, D., Shoptaw, S., Huber, A., Rawson, R. A., & Ling, W. (1996). Sexual HIV risk among gay and bisexual male methamphetamine abusers. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 13(6), 483–486. Gavett, G. (2011, August 15). Federal cuts lead to drop in meth lab busts. PBS Frontline. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/business-economy-financialcrisis/the-meth-epidemic/federal-cuts-lead-to-drop-in-me/ Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press. Grant, P. (2007). Evaluation of children removed from a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 33(1), 31–41. Griffin, M. L., & Rodriguez, N. (2008). The gendered nature of drug acquisition behavior within marijuana and crack drug markets. Crime & Delinquency, 57(3), 408–431. Griffin, M. L., & Rodriguez, N. (2011). The gendered nature of drug acquisition behavior within marijuana and crack drug markets. Crime & Delinquency, 57(3), 408 –431. Habermas, T., & Bluck, S. (2000). Getting a life: The emergence of the life story in adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 748–769. Haddock, B. D. (2005). Institutions and drug markets. University of North Texas. Haight, W., Black, J., & Sheridan, K. (2010). A mental health intervention for rural, foster children from methamphetamine-involved families: Experimental assessment with qualitative elaboration. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(10), 1446–1457. 196 Haight, W., Marshall, J., Hans, S., Black, J., & Sheridan, K. (2010). “They mess with me, I mess with them”: Understanding physical aggression in rural girls and boys from methamphetamine-involved families. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(10), 1223–1234. Haight, W., Ostler, T., Black, J., Sheridan, K., & Kingery, L. (2007). A child’s-eye view of parent methamphetamine abuse: Implications for helping foster families to succeed. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(1), 1–15. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2006.03.007 Hanks, R. S., & Carr, N. T. (2008). Lifelines of women in jail as self-constructed visual probes for life history research. Marriage & Family Review, 42(4), 105–116. Hansell, B. (2006). The meth epidemic in America: The criminal effect of meth on communities: A 2006 survey of U.S. counties. National Association of Counties. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved= 0CC8QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.in.gov%2Fcji%2Ffiles%2FNAC0_Meth_Sur vey_Report__Jul_2006.pdf&ei=OcdYUJ2ZNaPRyQHqr4DgAg&usg=AFQjCNEqUnaPrvNeIfQls3_2j6RH98qiw&sig2=RAJfnVfjfpZ3KpJZro_S-A Herz, D. C. (2000). Drugs in the Heartland: Methamphetamine Use in Rural Nebraska. National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/180986.pdf Hohman, M., Oliver, R., & Wright, W. (2004). Methamphetamine abuse and manufacture: The child welfare response. Social Work, 49(3), 373–381. Hunt, D., Kuck, S., & Truitt, L. (2006). Methamphetamine use: Lessons learned. Abt Associates. Retrieved from www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/209730.pdf Jacobs, B. A. (1993). Undercover deception clues: A case of restrictive deterrence. Criminology, 31(2), 281–299. Jacobs, B. A. (1996). Crack dealers and restrictive deterrence: Identifying narcs. Criminology, 34(3), 409–431. Jacobs, B. A., & Miller, J. (1998a). Crack dealing, gender, and arrest avoidance. Social Problems, 45(4), 550–569. Jacobs, B. A., & Miller, J. (1998b). Crack dealing, gender, and arrest avoidance. Social Problems, 45(4), 550–569. Jacobs, B. A., Topalli, V., & Wright, R. (2003). Carjacking,streetlife and offender motivation. British Journal of Criminology, 43(4), 673–688. 197 Jenkot, R. (2011). “Cooks are like gods”: Hierarchies in methamphetamine-producing groups. Deviant Behavior, 29(8), 667–689. Johnson, B. D., & Natarajan, M. (1995). Strategies to avoid arrest: Crack sellers’ response to intensified policing. American Journal of Police, 14(3/4), 49–69. Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (1999). Foundations of behavioral research (4th ed.). Wadsworth Publishing. Kerr, T., Small, W., & Wood, E. (2005). The public health and social impacts of drug market enforcement: A review of the evidence. International Journal of Drug Policy, 16(4), 210– 220. Krienert, J. L. (2003). Masculinity and crime: A quantitative exploration of Messerschmidt’s hypothesis. The Electronic Journal of Sociology, 7(2), 1–30. Kyle, M. D., & Hansell, B. (2005). The Meth Epidemic in America. National Association of Counties. Retrieved from http://www.naco.org/Content/ContentGroups/Publications1/Press_Releases/Documents/ NACo-MethSurvey.pdf Leve, L. D., & Chamberlain, P. (2004). Female juvenile offenders: Defining an early-onset pathway for delinquency. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 13(4), 439–452. Lineberry, T. W., & Bostwick, J. M. (2006). Methamphetamine abuse: A perfect storm of complications. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 81(1), 77–84. doi:10.4065/81.1.77 Maher, L. (1997). Sexed work: Gender, race, and resistance in a Brooklyn drug market. New York: Oxford. Maher, L., & Daly, K. (1996). Women in the street-level drug economy: Continuity or change? Criminology, 34(4), 465–491. Maher, L., & Hudson, S. L. (2007). Women in the drug economy: A metasynthesis of the qualitative literature. Journal of Drug Issues, 37(4), 805–826. Martyny, J. W., Van Dyke, M., McCammon, C. S., Erb, N., & Arbuckle, S. (2005). Chemical exposures associated with clandestine methamphetamine laboratories using the hypophosphorous and phosphorous flake method of production. Denver, CO: Jewish Medical and Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.nationaljewish.org/pdf/methhypo-cook.pdf 198 Maxfield, M. G., & Babbie, E. (1998). Research methods for criminal justice and criminology. Belmont, CA: Thompson-Wadsworth. May, T., & Hough, M. (2004). Drug markets and distribution systems. Addiction Research & Theory, 12(6), 549–563. McKetin, R., McLaren, J., & Kelly, E. (2005). The Sydney methamphetamine market: Patterns of supply, use, personal harms and social consequences. Sydney, Australia: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, Univesrity of New South Wales. Messerschmidt, J. W. (1993). Masculinities and crime: Critique and reconceptualization of theory. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Metzger, D. S., Woody, G. E., McLellan, A. T., O’Brien, C. P., Druley, P., Navaline, H., … Abrutyn, E. (1993). Human Immunodeficiency Virus seroconversion among intravenous drug users in- and out-of-treatment: An 18-month prospective follow-up. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 6(9), 1049–1056. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd Edition.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Miller, J. (1998a). Up it up: Gender and the accomplishment of street robbery. Criminology, 36(1), 37–65. Miller, J. (1998b). Gender and victimization risk among young women in gangs. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35(4), 429–453. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. (1995). Increasing Morbidity and Mortality Associated with Abuse of Methamphetamine – United States, 1991-1994. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00039666.htm Morgan, P., & Joe, K. A. (1996). Citizens and outlaws: The private lives and public lifestyles of women in the illicit drug economy. Journal of Drug Issues, 26, 125–142. Murray, J. B. (1998). Psychophysiological Aspects of Amphetamine—Methamphetamine Abuse. The Journal of Psychology, 132(2), 227–237. Natarajan, M., & Belanger, M. (1998). Varieties of drug trafficking organizations: A typology of cases prosecuted in New York City. Journal of Drug Issues, 28, 1005–1025. 199 National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2006a). Methamphetamine Use and Addiction. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://www.drugabuse.gov/PDF/RRMetham.pdf National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2006b). Methamphetamine. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://www.nida.nih.gov/pdf/infofacts/Methamphetamine06.pdf National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2006c). Research reports: Methamphetamine abuse and addiction. National Institute of Health. Retrieved from http://www.drugabuse.gov/sites/default/files/rrmetham.pdf National Survey on Drug Use and Health. (2005). Methamphetamine Use, Abuse, and Dependence: 2002, 2003, and 2004. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Retrieved from http://www.drugabusestatistics.samhsa.gov/2k5/meth/meth.pdf Nemes, R. S. (2010). Shake and Bake: The Meth Threat and the Need to Rethinking 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(C)(2). Washington University Law Review, 88(993), 993–1020. Office of National Drug Control Policy. (2007). Methamphetamine. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/methamphetamine/index.html Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Paul, J., Stall, R., & Davis, F. (1993). Sexual risk for HIV transmission among gay/bisexual men in substance-abuse treatment. AIDS Education and Prevention, 5(1), 11–24. Pearson, G., & Hobbs, D. (2003). King pin? A case study of a middle market drug broker. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(4), 335–347. Pennar, A. L., Shapiro, A. F., & Krysik, J. (2012). Drug endangered children: Examining children removed from methamphetamine laboratories. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(9), 1777–1785. Perlis, T. E., Des Jarlais, D. C., Friedman, S. R., Arasteh, K., & Turner, C. F. (2004). Audio‐computerized self‐interviewing versus face‐to‐face interviewing for research data collection at drug abuse treatment programs. Addiction, 99(7), 885–896. Privett, B. (2005). Landowner civil liability for meth lab containment under Kentucky law. Brandeis Law Journal, 44, 715. 200 Pruitt, L. R. (2008). Place matters: Domestic violence and rural difference. Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender & Society, 347, 372–378. Ratner, M. S. (1993). Sex, drugs, and public policy: Studying and understanding the sex-forcrack phenomenon. In M. S. Ratner (Ed.), Crack pipe for pimp: An ethnographic investigation of sex-for-crack exchanges (pp. 1–36). New York: Lexington. Rawson, R. A., Anglin, M. D., & Ling, W. (2002). Will the Methamphetamine Problem Go Away? Journal of Addicted Diseases, 21(1), 5–19. Rawson, R. A., Gonzales, R., & Brethen, P. (2002). Treatment of methamphetamine use disorders: an update. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 23(2), 145–150. Rigdon, B. A. (2012). Pharmacists on the Front Lines in the Fight Against Meth. Journal of Legal Medicine, 33(2), 253–283. Riggs Hafley, S., & Tewksbury, R. (1995). The Rural Kentucky marijuana industry: Organization and community involvement. Deviant Behavior, 16(3), 201–221. Roberts, J., Horney, J., Piquero, A. R., & Weisburd, D. (2010). The life event calendar method in criminological research. In Handbook of Quantitative Criminology (pp. 289–312). New York: Springer. Rodriquez, N., & Griffin, M. (2005). Gender Differences in Drug Market Activities: A Comparative Assessment of Men and Women’s Particiption in the Drug Market. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Rodriquez, N., Katz, C., Webb, V. J., & Schaefer, D. R. (2005). Examining the Impact of Individual, Community, and Market Factors on Methamphetamine Use: A Tale of Two Cities. Journal of Drug Issues, 35(4), 665–693. Ruspini, E. (2002). Introduction to longitudinal research. London: Routledge. Schatzberg, R., & Kelley, R. J. (1997). African-American organized crime: A social history. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Schatzberg, R., & Kelly, R. J. (1997). African American organized crime: A social history. New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press. Scott, M. S., & Dedel, K. (2006). Clandestine methamphetamine labs. US Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/ric/CDROMs/Tribal/alcohol/ClandestineMethLabs2ed.p df 201 Sexton, R. L., Carlson, R. G., Leukefeld, C. G., & Booth, B. M. (2006). Patterns of illicit methamphetamine production (“cooking”) and associated risks in the rural south: An ethnographic exploration. Journal of Drug Issues, 36(4), 853–876. Shears, J. K., & Furman, R. (2005). Examining Interpersonal Relationship Predictors of Delinquency Across Ethnic and Racial Samples. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 22(3-4), 281–299. Steffensmeier, D. J. (1983). Organization properties and sex-segregation in the underworld: Building a sociological theory of sex differences in crime. Social Forces, 61(4), 1010– 1032. Steffensmeier, D. J., & Terry, R. M. (1986). Institutional sexism in the underworld: A view from the inside. Sociological Inquiry, 56(3), 304–323. Sterk, C. E. (1999). Fast lives: Women who use crack cocaine. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Strauss, S. M., & Falkin, G. P. (2001). Women offenders who use and deal methamphetamine: Implications for mandated drug treatment, 12(4), 77–97. Stuhlmacher, A. F., & Walters, A. E. (1999). Gender differences in negotiation outcome: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 653–677. Sutton, J. E. (2010). A review of the life-events calendar method for criminological research. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(5), 1038–1044. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.07.006 Sviridoff, M., & Hillsman, S. T. (1994). Assessing the community effects of tactical narcotics teams. In D. L. MacKenzie & C. D. Uchida (Eds.), Drugs and Crime (pp. 114–128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Swetlow, K. (2003). Children at clandestine methamphetamine labs: Helping meth’s youngest victims. U. S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=ccflpubs Topalli, V., Wright, R., & Fornango, R. (2002). Drug dealers, robbery and retaliation. vulnerability, deterrence and the contagion of violence. British Journal of Criminology, 42(2), 337–351. UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs. (2006). Meth Overview. US Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/meth.html 202 United States Drug Enforcement Administration. (2006). Methamphetamine. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/meth.html United States Government Accountability Office. (2013). Drug control: State approaches taken to control access to key methamphetamine ingredient show varied impact on domestic drug labs. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/651709.pdf US Drug Enforcement Administration. (2008, June 26). 34 arrested in northwest Indiana alleged methamphetamine distribution ring. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/states/newsrel/chicago063008.html US Drug Enforcement Administration. (2012). Stats & Facts. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/dea/statistics.html US Drug Enforcement Agency. (2012). Methamphetamine Lab Incidents, 2004-2011. US Drug Enforcement Agency. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/dea/concern/map_lab_seizures.html VanderWaal, C., Bishop, R. M., McBride, D. C., Rosales, K., Chriqui, J. F., O’Connor, J. C., & Terry-McElrath, Y. M. (2008). Controlling methamphetamine precursors: The view from the trenches. Department of Justice. Vogt, A. S. (2001). The mess left behind: Regulating the cleanup of former methamphetamine laboratories. Idaho Law Review, 38, 251. Weisheit, R. A. (1990). Domestic marijuana growers: Mainstreaming deviance. Deviant Behavior, 11(2), 107–129. Weisheit, R. A. (1991). The intangible rewards from crime: The case of marijuana cultivation. Crime and Delinquency, 37(4), 506–527. Wermuth, L. (2000). Methamphetamine use: Hazards and social influences. Journal of Drug Education, 30(4), 423–433. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125–151. Wilson, H. S., Hutchinson, S. A., & Holzemer, W. L. (2002). Reconciling incompatibilities: A grounded theory of HIV medication adherence and symptom management. Qualitative Health Research, 12(10), 1309–1322. Winslow, B. T., Voorhees, K. I., & Pehl, K. A. (2007). Methamphetamine Abuse. American Family Physician, 76(8), 1169–1174. 203 Worden, R. E., Bynum, T. S., & Frank, J. (1994). Police crackdowns on drug abuse and trafficking. In D. L. MacKenzie & C. D. Uchida (Eds.), Drugs and Crime (pp. 95–113). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wuest, J. (2001). Precarious ordering: Toward a formal theory of women’s caring. Health Care for Women International, 22(1-2), 167–193. 204