an australian profile on cocaine supply

An Australian Profile on CocaineSupply

JAMES SHEARER, JENNIFER JOHNSTON, CRAIG L. FRY,SHARLENE KAYE, PAUL DILLON, PAUL DIETZE and

LINETTE COLLINSJames Shearer is Senior Research Officer, National Drug and Alcohol ResearchCentre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; Jennifer Johnston isResearch Fellow, Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre, Fitzroy, Victoria,

Australia; Craig L. Fry is Senior Research Fellow, Turning Point Alcohol andDrug Centre and Department of Public Health, University of Melbourne,

Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia; Sharlene Kaye is Senior Research Officer, NationalDrug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney,Australia; Paul Dillon is Information Manager, National Drug and AlcoholResearch Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; PaulDietze is Associate Professor, Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre andMonash Institute of Health Services Research, Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia;

Linette Collins was Manager, New South Wales Police Service

Abstract: Twenty Australian cocaine dealers were interviewed regarding cocaine salesand related issues. Most money was made by cocaine importers and by those selling small,diluted quantities to injecting drug users (IDU), with lower returns made by suppliers torecreational drug users. Australian domestic cocaine transactions appear to occur withinprivate social networks which are difficult to disrupt, with little impact on the volume andprice of cocaine. Given the large-scale importations required to support the Australianmarket, law enforcement efforts at the border and beyond are likely to be the most effectivesupply reduction strategy.

Cocaine use is a leading cause of illicit drug-related problems in manywestern countries (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 2003). Druglaw enforcement efforts against cocaine supply in many nations havestruggled in the face of increasing cocaine use and falling retail prices(Basov, Jacobson and Miron 2001). The use of cocaine powder and itssmokeable form, crack cocaine, has grown strongly in recent years inwestern Europe (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and DrugAddiction 2005), while wholesale and retail prices have steadily declined(United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 2004). The United States, oneof the longest established mass markets for cocaine, has recently seen

The Howard Journal Vol 47 No 1. February 2008ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 67–80

67

r 2008 The AuthorsJournal compilation r 2008 The Howard LeaguePublished by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK

consumption stabilise after many decades of consistent growth (UnitedNations Office on Drugs and Crime 2003), with prevalence of lifetime usenow estimated at 14.7% of the adult population (Substance Abuse andMental Health Services Administration 2003). Lifetime experience ofcocaine has been much lower in other countries, such as the UnitedKingdom (6.8%), Spain (4.9%) and Australia (4.7%) (Australian Institute ofHealth and Welfare 2005; European Monitoring Centre for Drugs andDrug Addiction 2005). Cocaine-related harms include cardiovascular andcerebrovascular problems (for example, heart attack, stroke) (Pettiti et al.1998; Darke, Kaye and Duflou 2005; Lange and Hillis 2001); increasedrisk of HIV transmission (Chaisson et al. 1989); psychological problems (forexample, dependence, psychosis, anxiety and depression) (Kaye andDarke 2004a); overdose (Kaye and Darke 2004b) and elevated rates ofcriminal activity (Bennett and Holloway 2004; Milner and McGregor2004).

Most Australian cocaine detections are made by the Australian CustomsService at the border (Figure 1). Australian border detections have beencharacterised by a small number of multi-hundred kilogram importationsvia small craft and a larger number of small importation attempts in airpassengers and via the postal system. Domestic and street level seizures byState police forces are less common, with only 192 detections in 2003/04weighing just over ten kilograms (Australian Crime Commission 2005).Arrests for cocaine-related offences have been consistently low comparedto those for other illicit drugs. For example, 328 people were arrested forcocaine-related offences in Australia in 2003/04 compared to 9,593 foramphetamine type substances and 3,691 for heroin (Australian CrimeCommission 2005).

Supply-side research in illicit drug markets has tended to be theoretical,and few published studies have attempted to directly interview for-profit

76

292

792

426

984

611317858

38 4579

652

50 52 63100

417

0100200300400500600700800900

10001100

1995

/96

1996

/97

1997

/98

1998

/99

1999

/00

2000

/01

2001

/02

2002

/03

2003

/04

Wei

ght

in k

ilogr

ams

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Num

ber

of d

etec

tion

s

Weight Number

FIGURE 1Number and Weight of Cocaine Detections 1995/1996 to 2003/2004 (Australian Customs Service)

(Source: Stafford et al. 2005)

68r 2008 The AuthorsJournal compilation r 2008 The Howard League


drug suppliers, compared to studies of drug users and lower-level streetdealers (Pearson and Hobbs 2003; Reuter and Haaga 1989). Drugsuppliers or dealers have been categorised by level (high-level wholesalers,middle-level brokers and low-level retailers), activity (finance, manufac-ture, importation, distribution), social organisation (freelance, kinship,communal, corporate) and market type (street, home-based, delivery,regional, national, trans-national) (Hough and Natarajan 2000). The focusof much work, particularly from the US, has been on street-based, retail-level crack cocaine dealing with relatively little work done on other types ofcocaine suppliers.

Only three empirical studies that involved non-street-based cocainedealers have appeared in the published literature. A study of 80 middleclass cocaine dealers (defined as selling mainly to other dealers) in the SanFrancisco Bay Area (Waldorf and Murphy 1995; Waldorf, Murphy andLauderback 1994) identified reasons for starting cocaine dealing as amixture of making money, procuring cocaine for their own use and socialstatus. These dealers did not perceive law enforcement as any real threatand felt they could reduce this risk through tightly controlling theirnetworks of buyers. The dealers were more concerned about unhappybuyers, informants and possible rip-offs. Important factors in dealers’decisions to stop selling were the physical, psychological and socialproblems associated with their own cocaine use.

The perceptions, tolerance and management of risk are importantpredictors of the nature and extent of individual participation in cocainesupply. Dorn and colleagues (1998) interviewed 15 imprisoned drugsmugglers (including five cocaine smugglers) convicted of large-scale drugsmuggling into the United Kingdom. They found that the risk associatedwith smuggling ‘bifurcated’ or was divided into two distinct typesassociated with two distinctive organisational patterns. ‘Strategic risk’ wasassociated with well-capitalised, risk-averse planners and organisersfinanced from family, business or other criminal activity. This groupaccepted the loss of shipments but carried little personal risk. ‘Tactical risk’accrued to those with operational involvement other than planning,organising or financing. These players were typically risk-tolerant, orpossibly even risk-naı̈ve, and lacked start-up capital. They carried thegreatest risk of personal apprehension. Those most likely to be responsiblefor most drug importation by weight were at ‘very much lower’ risk ofapprehension than the drug shipments or those who physically handledthem (Dorn, Oette and White 1998).

An analysis of so-called ‘middle level’ drug markets, based on 50 prisoninterviews (three-quarters involved in cocaine dealing) conducted inEngland, found that the so-called middle market was shallow and non-hierarchical and that most dealers could be described as ‘middle level’(Pearson and Hobbs 2001, 2003). The supply chains identified were muchshorter than expected. Small, flexible networks consisted of independententrepreneurial traders motivated by self-interest, with little loyalty toother network members. The middle market acted as a multi-drugclearinghouse where single-commodity wholesale/import supplies were

69r 2008 The Authors

Journal compilation r 2008 The Howard League


distributed to single-commodity retail level dealers. An important exceptionto this pattern was poly-drug sales among suppliers to the dance party scene.

An understanding of the nature of supply is fundamental to effectivedrug law enforcement. This article analyses results from a study of 298cocaine users in the two largest Australian cities of Sydney and Melbourne(Shearer et al. 2005). One of the aims of the project was to obtain a broaderunderstanding of cocaine markets, specifically among cocaine suppliersnot usually represented in drug market studies. The cocaine users wereasked whether they had sold or supplied cocaine in the year prior tointerview. This article examines the characteristics of 20 ‘for-profit’ cocainedealers who were defined as having traded cocaine for cash profit asopposed to no profit or keeping a proportion of cocaine for their own use.Interviews were conducted between October 2004 and January 2005, andincluded their dealing history, motivations for dealing, crude rates ofreturn on sales, perceptions and management of risk, their own drug useand drug-related problems. The results from the dealers were comparedto the cocaine procurement patterns reported by non-dealing cocaine users.

Methods

Data about purchasing and selling cocaine were drawn from a cross-sectional study of 298 cocaine users conducted in the two largest Australiancities of Melbourne (n 5 171) and Sydney (n 5 127) between October 2004and January 2005. Interviews were conducted face-to-face (n 5 146), bytelephone (n 5 19), or were submitted via an Internet-based survey(n 5 133). Participants were asked whether they had sold or suppliedcocaine in the year prior to interview. Twenty participants had sold cocainefor cash profit as opposed to supplying cocaine for no profit (usually forfriends or acquaintances) or in order to retain a proportion for their ownpersonal use (thereby supporting their own habit). Twelve ‘for-profit’dealers were identified in Sydney and eight in Melbourne. They wereinterviewed face-to-face (n 5 11), over the phone (n 5 4) or submittedsurveys via an online version of the interview (n 5 5). The 20 cocainedealers were asked questions about their life-time experience of cocaineand other drug dealing, motivations for dealing, the circumstances ofrecent cocaine transactions, price, quantity and purity of recent transac-tions, perception and management of risk, as well as their own drug useand drug-related problems.

Inclusion criteria were cocaine use in the previous six months and age18 years or older. All interviews were confidential and anonymous. Allrespondents participated voluntarily and those who participated in face-to-face or telephone interviews were reimbursed $50 for their participation.Participants were informed about the nature and purpose of the studybefore informed consent was taken. Ethical approval was obtained fromthe Human Research Ethics Committees of the University of New SouthWales and the Victorian Department of Human Services. A comprehensivereport is available (Shearer et al. 2005).



The study was advertised through news articles and paid advertise-ments placed across a broad spectrum of media, including financial,professional, daily newspapers, local community newspapers, Internetwebsites, free street newspapers and radio. Flyers advertising the studywere left at needle and syringe programmes, drug treatment centres, usergroups and community organisations. Snowballing techniques based onchain referral sampling though peers, clinical and research contacts werealso used (Biernacki and Waldorf 1981). On completion of each interview,participants were asked if they would mention the study to fellow users andsuppliers and, if interested, they were given flyers or cards to pass on.Interviews with less-involved members of supply chains, would often leadto subsequent participants presenting with much more extensive involve-ment in cocaine supply.

Participants were asked about the last two times they bought or suppliedcocaine (that is, price, quantity). A recent critical events approach (Darke etal. 1991) was used to explore the specific context of cocaine transactionsincluding location, usual relationship with supplier, other drugs purchasedfrom the supplier, duration of supply relationship and method of originalintroduction. Participants who had sold cocaine were asked what profitthey made on transactions and whether the cocaine was cut-down ordiluted before sale. These questions permitted specific estimates of theprices and effective rates returns adjusted for cutting across a range ofquantities in each city. The size and price of transactions is one indication ofthe position of an individual user or seller in the supply chain in theabsence of reliable purity data (Pennell et al. 1999). Multiple transactiondata from each dealer were accepted where transactions varied by quantityor reported returns. The sales were then ranked by rate of return on theoriginal outlay.

Criminal Activity was assessed using the Opiate Treatment Index CrimeScale (Darke et al. 1992) which measures property crime, drug dealing,fraud and violent crime in the past month. Severity of Cocaine Dependenceover the past twelve months was assessed using the Severity of DependenceScale (SDS) as described by Gossop and colleagues (Gossop et al. 1995), anda score of three or greater on the SDS was considered indicative of cocainedependence (Kaye and Darke 2002). Social Functioning was assessed usingthe Medical Outcomes Study 12-item Short-Form (SF-12) (Sanderson andAndrews 2002), which measures physical and psychological functioning.

Data were entered and analysed using SPSS for Windows (Version13.0). Statistical tests were two-tailed using a 5% level of significance.Continuous variables were analysed using t-tests, categorical variablesusing chi-squared and skewed data using the Mann-Whitney U-test.

Results

Sample Characteristics

The key demographics and drug-use patterns of the dealers compared tothe non-dealers are presented in Table 1. The for-profit dealers were more




likely to be male and used more cocaine than the sample as a whole.Otherwise the dealers appeared very much like other users, aged in thelate 20s, employed, well-educated and with similar poly-drug use patternsinvolving heroin and ecstasy.

Buying Cocaine and Other Drugs

The median price per gram of cocaine, based on the most recent purchaseoccasion, was the same in both cities at AUD$267 (range $140 to $500).Injecting drug users in Sydney also reported purchasing ‘caps’ of cocaine(approximately 0.1 grams prepared for injection). The median price ofcaps was AUD$50 (range $50 to $100). Median expenditure reported onthe most recent day of purchase was AUD$250 (range $1 to $1,700),1

mainly financed through paid employment (71%), drug dealing (cocaine,heroin, cannabis) (15%), government allowances (13%) and sex work(5%).2 Cocaine purchases mainly took place in private homes (66%), lessoften on the street (13%) or in entertainment venues such as nightclubs(5%), pubs or bars (8%), dance parties or ‘raves’ (3%) and very rarely inworkplaces (2%).3 Purchases were mainly arranged through friendshipnetworks (67%), home-based dealers (that is, you go to them) (13%),mobile dealers (that is, they come to you) (11%) or street-based dealers(5%).4 In terms of other drugs purchased from cocaine dealers, injectorswere more likely to report no other drug purchase (52%) than snorters(37%) (w2 5 11.256, po0.001). Injectors who purchased drugs in additionto cocaine in their most recent purchase bought heroin (19%), ecstasy(17%), crystal methamphetamine (10%) or cannabis (5%). Snorters alsopurchased ecstasy (53%), cannabis (25%), crystal methamphetamine (14%)or heroin (1%).

TABLE 1Comparison of Dealer and User Characteristics

Dealers(n 5 20)

Users(n 5 278)

p-value

Mean age (years) (SD) 30.5 (5.8) 28.8 (7.1) 0.303, t 5 � 1.032Male (%) 85 58 0.019, w2 5 5.507Single (%) 75 67 0.475, w2 5 0.511Tertiary educated (%) 25 40 0.176, w2 5 1.829Employed (%) 85 73 0.242, w2 5 1.371Median days cocaine used (range) 35 (6–180) 6 (1–180) o0.001, U 5 986.5Prefer snorting (%) 80 80 0.912, w2 5 0.529Prefer injecting (%) 15 15 0.912, w2 5 0.529Mean age cocaine first used (years) (SD) 20 (3.4) 21.4 (4.7) 0.187, t 5 1.323Weekly income 4 $1,000 (%) 40 28 0.245, w2 5 1.349Used heroin past 6 months (%) 20 28 0.901, w2 5 0.016Used ecstasy past 6 months (%) 80 65 0.632, w2 5 0.229Used crack cocaine past 6 months (%) 15 10 0.285, w2 5 1.145



Dealing Cocaine and Other Drugs

The cocaine dealers reportedly sold their first drug at around 20 years ofage (range 12 to 34 years) and most were introduced to cocaine dealing afew years into their dealing career at an average age of 23 years (range 14to 35 years). Thus, based on the average age of the group, they had anaverage history of dealing cocaine of eight years at the time of interview.The first drug ever dealt was, in most cases, either ecstasy (n 5 7) orcannabis (n 5 6), with only two reporting cocaine as the first drug they hadever dealt. Most were introduced to dealing through close friends (n 5 7),some through family members (n 5 3) or other connections such as theirown dealers, fellow sex workers or flatmates. The dealers were asked whythey started to deal cocaine. Equal numbers nominated money (n 5 6) orsocial reasons (that is, to help out friends, networking) (n 5 6). Otherinfluences included family (n 5 3), to support their own use or habit(n 5 3), while one dealer reported that he would lose clients if he did notrun a ‘one-stop’ shop. The average number of clients each dealer hadvaried according to the frequency of dealing, with dealers who dealt on aweekly basis supplying an average of seven users (range 1 to 30) and thosewho dealt monthly supplying an average of three users (range 1 to 5).

Only 10% (n 5 2) were solely involved in cocaine dealing. Four dealers(20%) supplied cocaine to drug injectors, while 15 (75%) supplied cocaineto non-injectors in conjunction with a range of recreational drugs,including ecstasy (87%), methamphetamine powder or base (53%),ketamine (40%), cannabis (33%) and crystal methamphetamine (27%).Heroin sales were not commonly reported (10%, n 5 2) and no dealer hadsold crack cocaine. None of the dealers had purchased heroin from theirown cocaine suppliers. In terms of the dealers’ positions in the supplychain, half on-sold to other dealers, with the other half selling only to endconsumers. Seventeen of the dealers reported whether or not other drugswere purchased from their own cocaine suppliers. Nine (53%) reportedthat cocaine was the only drug purchased from their cocaine supplier.Other drugs purchased from cocaine suppliers reported by eight dealers,included ecstasy (63%) and crystal methamphetamine (50%).

Cocaine Sales

The dealers provided sufficient cost and sales data on 36 transactions toestimate the purity-adjusted rate of return on initial outlay calculated inTable 2. A third of dealers reported cutting their purchases with glucose orunscented protein powders. Cutting ratios varied from 2:1 for gram salesto 4:1, 5:1 and 7:1 for transactions involving ounces or parts of ounces.Interviewees were not asked about the purity of the cocaine they sold,given the unreliability of such estimates; however, three volunteered puritydata based on testing through making crack cocaine. On this basis, twodealers had purchased 90% to 92% pure cocaine in ounces for 4:1 dilutionand on-sale, and a third dealer reported 50% to 60% purity on quarterounces.




TA

BL

E2

Ave

rage

Ret

urns

byQ

uant

ity

Qua

nti

ty(n

umb

erof

rep

orts

)M

edia

np

urch

ase

pri

ce($

)(r

ange

)M

edia

nsa

les

pri

ce($

)(r

ange

)M

edia

np

rofit

($)

(ran

ge)

Med

ian

retu

rn(%

)(r

ange

)

Cap

s(0

.1gr

am)

(n5

3)29

(22–

57)

50(5

0–10

0)22

(21–

43)

76(7

6–12

9)G

ram

s(n

511

)22

0(5

0–32

5)30

0(2

00–4

00)

70(3

0–15

0)25

(14–

300)

Par

tou

nce

s(n

511

)1,

540

(650

–3,0

00)

1,89

0(7

00–4

,190

)65

0(2

00–1

,190

)36

(17–

56)

Oun

ces

(n5

9)4,

500

(3,8

00–7

,000

)6,

250

(4,5

00–1

1,20

0)1,

200

(500

–4,2

00)

32(8

–63)

Kilo

gram

s(n

52)

1,00

0an

d15

0,00

014

0,00

0an

d17

5,00

013

9,00

0an

d25

,000

410

00an

d17

(No

teth

atth

em

edia

np

rofi

tan

dre

turn

sw

ere

no

tca

lcu

late

dfr

om

the

med

ian

sale

san

dp

urc

has

ep

rice

sas

they

wer

en

ot

nec

essa

rily

fro

mth

esa

me

tran

sact

ion

)



A dilution adjusted rate of return was calculated based on the followingformulae:

Profit 5 [Sales Price � (Purchase Quantity1Dilution)] – [Purchase Price �Purchase Quantity]

Rate of return 5 Profit/[Purchase Price � Purchase Quantity]

For example, one dealer described purchasing one ounce (28 grams) ofcocaine for AUD$5,500, cutting it on the basis of 2:1 to resell at AUD$200per gram. Thus:

Profit 5 [$200 � (28114)] – [$196.43 � 28] 5 $8,400 – $5,500 5 $2,900

and:

Rate of return 5 $2,900/$5,500 5 53% per gram

Transactions were reported for: (i) caps (� 0.1 gram) designed forinjection; (ii) grams or multiple grams; (iii) part ounces including ‘eightballs’ or 1/8 ounce (3.5 grams), 1/4 ounce (7 grams) and ‘half weights’ or 1/2ounce (14 grams); (iv) ounces or multiples thereof; and (v) kilograms.There were no reports concerning multiple kilogram sales.

Cocaine-related Problems

Self-reported cocaine-related health, financial, personal and criminalproblems appear in Table 3, where they are also compared to non-dealingcocaine users. The for-profit dealers were significantly more likely toreport relationship problems, to have sought treatment for cocaine-relatedproblems in the previous six months and to be classified as cocaine

TABLE 3Cocaine-related Problems

Dealers (n 5 20) Users (n 5 278) p-value

Occupational/study (%) 25 12 0.091, w2 5 2.863Relationship/social (%) 40 13 0.001, w2 5 10.299Financial (%) 35 21 0.155, w2 5 2.026Legal/police (%) 4 5 0.821, w2 5 0.51

Dealers (n 5 15)n Users (n 5 149)n

Treatment sought (%) 27 7 0.008, w2 5 6.951Cocaine dependence

diagnosis (%)80 31 o0.001, w2 5 14.389

Physical disability (%) 40 33 0.578, w2 5 0.309Mental disability (%) 53 66 0.309, w2 5 1.033Mean OTI crime score (SD) 2.44 (1.77) 0.77 (1.38) o0.001, t 5 � 4.241Prison history (%) 21 17 0.660, w2 5 0.193

(Note: n Questions not included in Internet survey)




dependent. The OTI crime score was predictably higher among thecocaine dealers almost entirely due to illicit drug supply. There were veryfew other reports of illegal activity.

Perceived Risk

Half of the dealers (53%) saw little or no risk at their current levels of cocainedealing. The main sources of risk were law enforcement (59%), cocaine users(29%) and other dealers (12%). Apart from the obvious consequences ofarrest and incarceration, the dealers were specifically concerned by the useof drug sniffer dogs in Sydney, which may have contributed to a shift fromstreet-based dealing to home-based dealing facilitated by mobile telephones.Dealers were also generally concerned about undercover operations,phone-tapping and high penalties specific to cocaine dealing relative toother drugs. Concerns about other dealers focused on the potential forviolence from other dealers over turf disputes and the potential for robbery.

Cocaine users were identified as a source of risk because of the high levelof repeat business and the potential for agitated behaviour which couldattract police attention. Some dealers were concerned about users gettingcaught and leading police up relatively short supply chains. The strategy ofmany dealers was to avoid ‘lower end’ users and the longer-term dealersinterviewed in this sample attributed their success to restricting thenumber and type of clients they serviced.

Discussion

The for-profit cocaine dealers interviewed in this study used cocainesignificantly more often than non-dealing cocaine users and, accordingly,experienced more cocaine-related problems, including high rates of cocainedependence and treatment-seeking behaviour. This was a largely unantici-pated risk attached to cocaine dealing and was similar to the phenomenonidentified in a study of US middle class cocaine dealers (Waldorf andMurphy 1995; Waldorf, Murphy and Lauderback 1994). This finding maynot be surprising given the easy access dealers have to large amounts ofrelatively pure cocaine. In the present study, the dealers actually had morecontact with treatment services than law enforcement. This may have beenan artefact of one of the recruitment criteria for the study which was basedon cocaine use in the previous six months. Furthermore, all the dealersinterviewed were at the retail or middle level and no higher-level wholesaleor trafficking dealers were interviewed. The latter may be at less risk ofcocaine-related problems especially if they had less ‘hands-on’ involvement.

Only two dealers interviewed were solely involved in cocaine dealing.This is consistent with the poly-drug usage patterns of Australian cocaineusers, where cocaine is not generally the first drug of choice or concern.Two distinct types of dealers were identified at both retail and the middlelevel. The first supplied injecting drug users although there was littleoverlap with heroin supply. Heroin and cocaine are both imported intoAustralia but are very rarely found together in intercepted shipments,which is unsurprising given the distance between producer nations in



South East Asia and South America. This separation of supply channelsappeared to persist through the whole supply chain down to the retaillevel. The second type of cocaine dealer supplied cocaine as part of a rangeof party drugs, most notably ecstasy. The first drug dealt was not cocaine inmost cases but was usually either ecstasy or cannabis.

Perceptions of risk attached to dealing were not high, and tended todecrease as dealers moved up the supply chain. The most important sources ofrisk were considered to be street-level law enforcement and cocaine users. Themain (and mostly successful) risk-management technique reported was to limitthe number and nature of customers. An impression gained during researchinterviews was that many dealers, particularly younger party drug suppliers,did not appear to appreciate or understand the potential consequences oftheir activities. More mature dealers understood the consequences butmanaged the risk of apprehension through carefully restricting their customerbase. This variation in the perceived risk may be comparable to the risk-tolerance or risk-naı̈vety described in convicted drug smugglers who playedpredominantly operational or ‘hands-on’ roles (Dorn, Oette and White 1998).

Reported returns were highest for importers and suppliers to injectingdrug users. Returns for those involved in importation were in the order ofmany thousands of per cent with the landed cost per kilogram atAUD$150,000 leaving little scope for mark-up by domestic dealers withoutsubstantive cutting. The dealers in the present study reported very modestlevels of cutting. Returns for suppliers of caps to injecting drug usersaveraged 76% since users were effectively paying twice as much for a cap(0.1 gram) at AUD$50 to AUD$100 compared to the average price of a fullgram at AUD$267. The purity adjusted mark-up on grams of cocaine soldto recreational cocaine users averaged 25%. Returns on partial ouncesaveraged 36% and full ounces 32%. The returns for dealers at the retailand middle level in this market were not high – amply illustrated by the factthat most dealers ‘kept their day jobs’ often in low-level trades andhospitality positions. Factors other than money were important insustaining their involvement. Main reasons for starting dealing wereequally attributed to making money (financial) or social (status) reasons.The data from this study suggest that cocaine dependence emerges asanother important factor in sustaining involvement in dealing.

Nearly all cocaine smuggled into Australia is the water-soluble form(cocaine hydrochloride) suitable for snorting or injection. The conversionof cocaine powder to the highly pure, smokeable crack cocaine form, is asimple process that can be done in any domestic kitchen (Julien 2001). Theresultant quantity of crack cocaine depends on the purity of the cocainepowder, for example, a gram of 60% pure cocaine powder will yield 0.6grams of crack cocaine. No dealers reported sales of crack cocaine,although many were familiar with making crack cocaine in order to test thepurity of powdered cocaine. The relatively high cost, low purity and readymarket for powder cocaine appears to have made any market for crackcocaine unviable in the Australian context.

Interpretation of the results of the study is subject to several importantlimitations. The 20 for-profit dealers were drawn from a sample of cocaine




users that excluded wholesalers and importers who did not personally usecocaine. Such individuals would avoid many risks experienced by retail-level dealers (Dorn, Oette and White 1998), such as cocaine dependenceand interactions with potentially unstable drug dependent customers, andwho were likely to make greater returns (Caulkins et al. 1999). The smallsample size is comparable to other studies of cocaine suppliers (Dorn, Oetteand White 1998; Pearson and Hobbs 2003; Waldorf and Murphy 1995)and reflects the inherent difficulties of recruiting active drug dealers.Convicted or arrested dealers may provide a more convenient source ofdata, however, they would be, by definition, unsuccessful and may notreflect current market conditions (Reuter and Haaga 1989).

Five interviews were submitted through an Internet version of thesurvey. Younger, more educated people have greater access to the Internetand may be more confident in the security of data-encrypted surveys(Nicholson, White and Duncan 1998). There may also be concerns aboutthe validity and reliability of reports from cocaine dealers. Price, purity andprofit are sensitive data, which even in the legitimate commercial world areusually held in confidence. Price data were obtained using a recent criticalevents approach rather than averaging, which permitted specific estima-tions of prices paid and returns on resold cocaine. Price data reported byfor-profit dealers were consistent with those reported by the cocaine usersparticipating in the study, which were also consistent with those reported ininterviews submitted through the Internet version of the survey.Transaction cost data (that is, concealment, storage, transport, commu-nications costs) were not collected, although these appeared to be minor.

In Australia, cocaine has been considerably more expensive than otherillicit recreational drugs such as ecstasy and methamphetamine, yet demandfor cocaine remains perennially strong. Most cocaine users in the presentstudy reported low levels of cocaine-related harms, a finding replicated inrecent European research (Prinzleve, Haasen and Zurhold 2004). In Australiathis is more likely to reflect the low, occasional-use patterns of use dictated bythe expense and scarcity of cocaine relative to other recreational drugs such asecstasy and methamphetamine. Together with the low-risk perceptions ofdealers interviewed in the present study, it would appear to be a difficult taskto persuade participants of the risks of participating in the cocaine market,either as a supplier or consumer. The private nature of cocaine supply anduse identified in this study, presents few opportunities for Australian domesticlaw enforcement to disrupt domestic distribution networks of landed cocaine,as evidenced by the small numbers of domestic seizures and arrests(Australian Crime Commission 2005). Given these difficulties, and the factthat Australia has few direct physical, cultural or economic links with SouthAmerican cocaine producing regions, supply control strategies which focus atthe Australian border would appear to be most effective.5

Notes

1 Twenty self-identified cocaine dealers were excluded since their most recent purchasesmay have included stock for resale. Eleven subjects who had not purchased cocaine inthe previous six months were also excluded.



2 Percentages add up to more than 100 because the question allowed multiple responses.3 Those who responded ‘other’ are not included.4 Those who responded ‘other’ are not included.5 Acknowledgements: This study was funded by the National Drug Law Enforcement

Research Fund (NDLERF) which is funded by the Australian Government Departmentof Health and Ageing. We thank the interviewers and the cocaine dealers and userswho gave their time and trust to provide the information used in this article. We arealso grateful for the guidance and input from the study reference group. The opinionsin this article are entirely those of the authors, who accept responsibility for all errorsor omissions. The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of theNDLERF Board of Management or the members of the study reference group.

References

Australian Crime Commission (2005) IIlicit Drug Data Report 2003–04, Canberra,Australia: Australian Crime Commission.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2005) National Drug Strategy HouseholdSurvey: Detailed Findings (AIHW Cat. No. PHE 66), Canberra, Australia: AustralianInstitute of Health and Welfare.

Basov, S., Jacobson, M. and Miron, J. (2001) ‘Prohibition and the market for illegaldrugs’, World Economics, 2, 133–57.

Bennett, T. and Holloway, K. (2004) Drug Use and Offending: Summary Results of the FirstTwo Years of the NEW-ADAM Programme, London: Home Office.

Biernacki, P. and Waldorf, D. (1981) ‘Snowball sampling: problems and techniques ofchain referral sampling’, Sociological Methods and Research, 10, 141–63.

Caulkins, J., Johnson, B., Taylor, A. and Taylor, L. (1999) ‘What drug dealers tell usabout their costs of doing business’, Journal of Drug Issues, 29, 323–40.

Chaisson, R., Bacchetti, P., Osmond, D., Brodie, B., Sande, M. and Moss, A. (1989)‘Cocaine use and HIV infection in intravenous drug users in San Francisco’, Journalof the American Medical Association, 261, 561–5.

Darke, S., Hall, W., Wodak, A., Heather, N. and Ward, J. (1992) ‘Development andvalidation of a multi-dimensional instrument for assessing outcome of treatmentamong opiate users: The Opiate Treatment Index’, British Journal of Addiction, 87,733–42.

Darke, S., Heather, N., Hall, W., Ward, J. and Wodak, A. (1991) ‘Estimating drugconsumption in opioid users: reliability and validity of a ‘‘recent use’’ episodesmethod’, British Journal of Addiction, 86, 1311–16.

Darke, S., Kaye, S. and Duflou, J. (2005) ‘Cocaine-related fatalities in New SouthWales, Australia 1993–2002’, Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 77, 107–14.

Dorn, N., Oette, L. and White, S. (1998) ‘Drugs importation and the bifurcation ofrisk’, British Journal of Criminology, 38, 537–60.

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2005) The State of theDrugs Problem in Europe, Lisbon: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and DrugAddiction.

Gossop, M., Darke, S., Griffiths, P., Hando, J., Powis, B., Hall, W. and Strang, J. (1995)‘The Severity of Dependence Scale (SDS): psychometric properties of the SDS inEnglish and Australian samples of heroin, cocaine and amphetamine users’,Addiction, 90, 607–14.

Hough, M. and Natarajan, M. (2000) ‘Introduction: illegal drug markets, research andpolicy’, in: M. Hough and M. Natarajan (Eds.), Illegal Drug Markets: From Research toPrevention Policy, Monsey, NY.: Criminal Justice Press.

Julien, R. (2001) A Primer of Drug Action, New York: Henry Holt and Company.




Kaye, S. and Darke, S. (2002) ‘Determining a diagnostic cut-off on the Severity ofDependence Scale (SDS) for cocaine dependence’, Addiction, 97, 727–31.

Kaye, S. and Darke, S. (2004a) ‘Injecting and non-injecting cocaine use in Sydney,Australia: physical and psychological morbidity’, Drug and Alcohol Review, 23, 391–8.

Kaye, S. and Darke, S. (2004b) ‘Non-fatal cocaine overdose among injecting and non-injecting cocaine users in Sydney, Australia’, Addiction, 99, 1315–22.

Lange, R. and Hillis, L. (2001) ‘Cardiovascular complications of cocaine use’, NewEngland Journal of Medicine, 345, 351–8.

Milner, L. and McGregor, K. (2004) ‘Cocaine use among a sample of police detainees’,Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, Canberra, Australia: AustralianInstitute of Criminology.

Nicholson, T., White, J. and Duncan, D. (1998) ‘Drugnet: a pilot study of adultrecreational drug users via the WWW’, Substance Abuse, 19, 109–21.

Pearson, G. and Hobbs, D. (2001) Middle Market Drug Distribution (Home OfficeResearch Study 227), London: Home Office.

Pearson, G. and Hobbs, D. (2003) ‘King pin? A case study of a middle market drugbroker’, Howard Journal, 42, 335–47.

Pennell, S., Ellett, J., Rienick, C. and Grimes, J. (1999) Meth Matters: Report onMethamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities, Washington, DC.: National Institute ofJustice.

Pettiti, D., Stephen, S., Quesenbury, C. and Bernstein, A. (1998) ‘Stroke and cocaine oramphetamine use’, Epidemiology, 9, 596–600.

Prinzleve, M., Haasen, H. and Zurhold, H. (2004) ‘Cocaine use in Europe – a multi-centre study: patterns of use in different groups’, European Addiction Research, 10,147–55.

Reuter, P. and Haaga, J. (1989) The Organization of High-level Drug Markets: AnExploratory Study, Washington, DC.: Rand Corporation.

Sanderson, K. and Andrews, G. (2002) ‘The SF-12 in the Australian population: cross-validation of item selection’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 26,343–5.

Shearer, J., Johnston, J., Kaye, S., Collins, L. and Dillon, P. (2005) Characteristics andDynamics of Cocaine Supply and Demand in Sydney and Melbourne (Monograph SeriesNo. 14), Adelaide, Australia: National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund.

Stafford, J., Degenhardt, L., Black, E., Bruno, R., Buckingham, K., Fetherston, J.,Jenkinson, R., Kinner, S., Moon, C. and Weekley, J. (2005) Australian Drug Trends2004: Findings from the Illicit Drug Reporting System (IDRS) (Monograph Series No.55), Sydney, Australia: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2003) 2003 NationalSurvey on Drug Use and Health, Rockville, MD.: Substance Abuse and Mental HealthServices Administration.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2003) Global Illicit Drug Trends 2003,Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2004) World Drug Report 2004, Vienna:United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

Waldorf, D. and Murphy, S. (1995) ‘Perceived risks and criminal justice pressures onmiddle class cocaine sellers’, Journal of Drug Issues, 25, 11–32.

Waldorf, D., Murphy, S. and Lauderback, D. (1994) ‘Middle class cocaine sellers: self-reported reasons for stopping sales’, Addiction Research, 2, 109–26.

Date submitted: September 2006Date accepted: April 2007



an australian profile on cocaine supply

Documents