Crushing a Walnut With a Sledge Hammer? Analysing the Penal Response to the Social Supply of Illicit Drugs
| Published date | 01 December 2013 |
| Author | Ross Coomber,Leah Moyle,Jason Lowther |
| DOI | 10.1177/0964663913487544 |
| Date | 01 December 2013 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Crushing a Walnut With
a Sledge Hammer?
Analysing the Penal
Response to the Social
Supply of Illicit Drugs
Leah Moyle, Ross Coomber and Jason Lowther
Plymouth University, UK
Abstract
The evidence base relating to illicit drug markets, drug supply activities and drug seller
characteristicsincreasinglypresents a picture of diversity,whereby differingmotivations for
supplyingsuggest different levelsof culpability and divergencefrom a homogenisedimage of
the drug dealer. This paper seeks to explore one specific aspect of this divergence, that
of social supply and how the Criminal Justice System currently deals with this in practice
and principle.It is argued that social supplyis qualitatively distinctfrom drug dealing ‘proper’
and although this distinction is increasingly acknowledged within the Criminal Justice
System,current approachesneither conform to principlesof proportionalitynor sufficiently
understand the natureof social supply to deal with it effectively under existing legislation.
Following consideration of these issues, it is argued that social supply should become a
distinct offence in law, analogous to how manslaughter is distinguished from the more
serious offence of murder.
Keywords
Drugs, drug dealing, drug supply, proportionality, punishment, sentencing, social supply
Corresponding author:
Leah Moyle, School of Social Science and Social work, Plymouth University, Room 301, Hepworth House,
Plymouth, Devon, PL4 8AA, UK.
Email: leah.moyle@plymouth.ac.uk
Social & Legal Studies
22(4) 553–573
ªThe Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0964663913487544
sls.sagepub.com
Introduction
A range of recent research on illicit drug markets has highlighted the importance and
incidence of social supply. It has become clear that social supply (an act of supply or
facilitation of supply for little or no gain to friends and acquaintances) is central to most
young people’s drug transactions, providing a safe way of accessing recreational drugs
and avoiding the widely perceived dangers of involvement with the ‘drug dealer’ (Coom-
ber and Turnbull, 2007; Measham et al., 2001; Parker et al., 1998). Additionally, empiri-
cal research has also provided insight into why social supply can increasingly be found to
characterise meaningful segments of the adult recreational drug supply market (see
Jacinto et al., 2008; Joe-Laidler and Hunt, 2008; Murphy et al., 1990, 2005; Shearer
et al., 2005), with the convenience, risk minimisation and financial advantages of utilis-
ing friendship and acquaintance networks as preferential to negotiating access to and
buying from commercially orientated ‘street’ dealers (Aldridge et al., 2011; Coomber
and Moyle, 2013; Measham et al., 2001). The growth of the social supply of recreational
drugs – an activity that may be argued to be qualitatively different in kind to drug dealing
(as normatively understood) – has profound consequences for supply-related prosecution
and sentencing within the United Kingdom. This paper principally explores the current
punitive situation and consequences for social suppliers of drugs such as cannabis and
ecstasy. It also considers the position of heroin user–dealers as ‘minimally commercial
suppliers’ and puts forward the argument that neither of these groups are those that the
current laws on supply were originally concerned with or established to capture. Despite
recent calls and increased momentum for a decriminalisation agenda (see All-Party Par-
liamentary Group for Drug Policy Reform, 2013; Home Affairs Select Committee,
2012), we recommend revision to the current laws (rather than a move towards that of
decriminalisation) for good pragmatic reasons. First, the authors feel it would be remiss
to assume that this change could take place in the near future and as such there is a need
to address extant concerns not some future possibility; second, even if decriminalisation
were to gain significant momentum we feel it is important to stress that liberalised legal
frameworks towards use/possession have almost always been accompanied with
increased punitiveness towards suppliers (often as a trade-off for not being seen to be
‘soft’ on drugs). Therefore, we believe it to be unlikely that moves to decriminalise
use/possession would also signal moves to decriminalise supply – particularly for sup-
pliers of heroin or crack cocaine.
Therefore, it is the intention of this paper to offer a considered and pragmatic response
to the current context of prohibition and the deficiencies of that system. In these circum-
stances, suggestions are thus made for an alternative and proportionate framework,
which could recognise such behaviours as a distinct offence in law, whilst also identify-
ing likely barriers for the implementation of a more appropriate and equitable legal
framework. In order to situate this, the paper will use the philosophy of Kant (1999) and
von Hirsch (1992, 1993) to advocate the crucial importance of proportionality as a phi-
losophy of punishment and will then review the existing definitions of social supply and
the acknowledgements of implicit social supply behaviours identified in relevant
research. Drawing on both current and traditionally cited characteristics of culpability
and harm within drug supply, the authors employ recommendations from The Police
554 Social & Legal Studies 22(4)
To continue reading
Request your trial