The role of community-mindedness in the self-regulation of drug cultures : a case study from the Shetland Islands

Anke Stallwitz

2012

Springer

This book analyzes heroin users and the drug subculture on the Shetland Islands, an area known for its geographical remoteness, rural character and relative wealth. It fills the scientific gap created by the conventional research in heroin research, which is usually conducted in urban areas and relies on treatment and prison populations. Based on qualitative, in-depth interviews with twenty-four heroin users, this book depicts and analyzes the nature and historical development of the local heroin scene. It illustrates the features and internal structures of the subculture, and it examines the manner in which both are influenced by the location-specific geographical, cultural and socio-economic conditions. It thus reveals complex causal associations that are hard to recognize in urban environments. Complete with a list of references used and recommendations for future research, this book is a vital tool for progressive and pragmatic approaches to policy, intervention and research in the field of illicit drug use.

Psychology

English

9789400738607

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/

The Role of Community-Mindedness
in the Self-Regulation of Drug Cultures

Anke Stallwitz

The Role of CommunityMindedness in the
Self-Regulation
of Drug Cultures
A Case Study from the Shetland Islands

Anke Stallwitz
Evangelische Hochschule Freiburg (Protestant University of Applied Sciences Freiburg)
Bugginger Str. 38
79114 Freiburg
Germany

ISBN 978-94-007-3860-7
ISBN 978-94-007-3861-4 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3861-4
Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London
Library of Congress Control Number: 2012935648
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection
with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and
executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this
publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s
location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Permissions
for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations are liable to
prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for
any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied,with
respect to the material contained herein.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

This work was presented as a PhD thesis
at University of Bremen 2010 and originally
entitled ‘The role of community-mindedness
in the self-regulation of drug cultures
with a focus on the heroin scene
on the Shetland Islands’.

Acknowledgements

Above all, I would like to sincerely thank my interviewees, without whom I could
not have conducted this fascinating research project that has greatly opened and
broadened my horizon as a researcher and as a person.
My warmest thanks I would like to express to Carl Rose, who provided moral,
intellectual, and nutritional support whenever I asked for it or did not. I am very
grateful for his uncompromising assistance and belief in my abilities.
I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Heino Stöver from the University of Bremen for
being my mentor and for finding a little time between Madrid, Ankara, …, Frankfurt,
and Bremen to give me feedback, assessment, and encouragement to continue with
the not always easy research process.
Many thanks to Prof. Dr. Inghard Langer from the University of Hamburg, who
assisted as my methodological mentor in spite of being an emeritus professor and
deserving rest after a long successful academic career.
Very much I would also like to thank Prof. Dr. Gerhard Riemann from the
University of Applied Sciences in Nuremberg for taking his time unhesitatingly
whenever I approached him with complex and often very specific and tricky methodological concerns. I much profited from his thorough knowledge of the grounded
theory methodology, amongst other things obtained during his co-operation with
Anselm Strauss.
With regard to grounded theory expertise, I also would like to express my thanks
to the Prof. Dr. Franz Breuer from the University of Münster. He kindly provided
me access to his grounded theory research colloquium and repeatedly advised me
on the skill of ‘modelling a grounded theory’.
During my stay as a researcher in residence at the Deutsches Jugendinstitut in
Munich, Dr. Christian Lüders discussed my research with me against the background
of the Deutungsmuster (patterns of interpretation) approach, thereby providing an
alternative methodological perspective on my data. I would like to thank him for his
time and interest.
Very special thanks also to the Shetland Community Drugs Team (CDT), now
Community Alcohol and Drugs Services Shetland (CADSS), for assisting invaluably
with accessing client and non-client heroin users. In particular, Colin Tulloch and
vii

viii

Acknowledgements

Linda Gray were most helpful in this respect. Thanks also to the project manager
Gill Hession for kindly providing the annual reports of CDT and CADSS. A second
thanks goes to Colin Tulloch for regularly updating me on the latest progressions of
the Shetland heroin scene. Another very specific thanks to Jessie Gray for generously accommodating me during the 2 months I stayed in Shetland to collect the
data for this study. Also thanks to the many Shetlanders I met during my two
research stays on the islands, who readily assisted in making contacts to ‘hidden’,
non-client heroin users. Without their help, I would never have been in the position
to meet ten users of this group within 2 months.
I am also very grateful towards Prof. Dr. Alexander Redlich for providing me
with a workplace at the psychology department of Hamburg University for 2 years.
Not only did I have access to the university server and thereby the electronic databases of the university library but also could I exchange views and swap ideas with
university researchers and lecturers. In this context, I would like to thank my colleague
Caroline Trautwein for providing her precious external perspective on intricate
methodological and content-related issues. More than one after-lunch coffee was
dedicated to heroin in Shetland.
Furthermore, I would like to thank Marc-Liam Toolan for lending me his native
perspective on my writing and especially counteracting my pronounced inclination
to long and complexly compound sentence structures.
Last but not least, I wish to express my genuine thanks to David Shewan, from
the Glasgow Centre for the Study of Violence at Glasgow Caledonian University.
He accompanied my first Shetland study and gave me many interesting ideas. I am
very grateful for his scientific advice and his frequent and insistent encouragement
and reflection of my abilities and strengths as a drugs researcher and a person in
times of doubt. I will never forget you, my dear friend.
Anke Stallwitz
Freiburg

Contents

Part I

Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of the Study

1

Introduction .............................................................................................
1.1 Drug Use on the Shetland Islands ....................................................
1.2 Forerun of the Study ........................................................................
1.3 Overview of the Book ......................................................................
References .................................................................................................

3
3
5
6
7

2

Theoretical Background and Literature Review .................................
2.1 An Introduction ................................................................................
2.2 Definitions of Problematic and Unproblematic Drug Use ...............
2.2.1 Defining Problematic Drug Use ...........................................
2.2.2 Defining Unproblematic, Controlled Drug Use ...................
2.2.3 Spectrum of Using Patterns..................................................
2.2.4 Definitions Employed in This Book.....................................
2.3 Deficiency-Oriented Approaches: The Prevailing
Theoretical Basis of Most Research on Heroin Use ........................
2.3.1 The Medical or Disease Model ............................................
2.3.2 Biological, Psychological, and Sociological
Approaches...........................................................................
2.3.3 Conclusions Regarding Conventional
Theories of Heroin Use and Addiction ................................
2.4 Limitations of Knowledge from Traditional Samples .....................
2.5 Qualitative Drugs Research .............................................................
2.5.1 Qualitative Heroin Studies with Urban
Problematic Heroin Users ....................................................
2.6 Non-habitual, Controlled Use of ‘Hard’ Drugs ...............................
2.6.1 Research on Non-dependent
and Controlled Heroin Use ..................................................
2.6.2 The Significance of Drug, Set, and Setting
in the Prevention of Problematic Drug Use .........................

11
11
11
11
12
13
13
14
14
15
17
17
19
19
22
22
23
ix

x

Contents

2.6.3 Further Research Concerned with the Control
of Heroin and Crack/Cocaine Use ...................................
2.6.4 Practical Application of Findings
from Research on Controlled Heroin Use ........................
2.7 Drug Subcultures............................................................................
2.7.1 Defining Drug Subculture and Drug Scene......................
2.7.2 Research on Heroin Subcultures ......................................
2.8 Location-Specific Research Perspectives
of Drug Use Across the World .......................................................
2.8.1 Heroin Use in Non-urban Areas.......................................
2.8.2 Defining ‘Rural’ ...............................................................
2.8.3 Excursion into the Empirical Evidence
of Non-urban Drugs Research Across the World.............
2.8.4 Location-Specific Drugs Research ...................................
2.9 Published and Unpublished Research
on Drug Use in Shetland ................................................................
2.9.1 Statistical Information on Drug Use
in Shetland: ISD and CADSS ..........................................
2.9.2 Unpublished Research on Drug Use in Shetland .............
2.9.3 Published Research on Heroin Use in Shetland ...............
2.9.4 Media Information on Heroin Use in Shetland ................
2.10 The Laboratory Situation of the Shetland Islands..........................
2.11 Research Aim .................................................................................
2.11.1 Original Research Question .............................................
References .................................................................................................
3

Methodology ............................................................................................
3.1 Methodological Approach: Qualitative,
Semi-structured In-Depth Interviews .............................................
3.2 The Significance of Qualitative Methods in Drugs Research ........
3.2.1 Qualitative Methods Within the Social Sciences .............
3.2.2 Status and Role of Qualitative Drugs Research ...............
3.3 Grounded Theory as Methodological Foundation .........................
3.3.1 Historical and Epistemological Roots
of Grounded Theory .........................................................
3.3.2 The Principles of Grounded Theory.................................
3.4 Specification of the Research Perspective and Question ...............
3.4.1 Revised Research Question ..............................................
3.4.2 Cultural Psychology as Meta-theoretical
Framework .......................................................................
3.5 Preconceptions ...............................................................................
3.6 Research Procedure ........................................................................
3.6.1 Research Location and Design .........................................
3.6.2 Participant Criteria ...........................................................
3.6.3 Sampling ..........................................................................

24
26
27
28
28
31
31
32
33
37
41
41
43
44
45
45
46
47
47
59
59
61
61
62
64
64
66
68
71
71
73
74
74
74
75

Contents

xi

3.6.4 Participant Characteristics....................................................
3.6.5 Research Instrument.............................................................
3.6.6 Interview Setting ..................................................................
3.6.7 Data Collection and Interview Conditions ...........................
3.6.8 Provisions for Trustworthiness.............................................
3.6.9 Confidentiality and Ethical Considerations..........................
3.7 Data Analysis ...................................................................................
References .................................................................................................
Part II

77
78
81
81
82
82
83
84

The Shetland Heroin Scene: Location-Specific
Characteristics and Historical Evolution

4

Introduction to Part II ............................................................................
4.1 Participant Perspectives and Reality Understanding........................
4.2 Overview of Part II...........................................................................
Reference ..................................................................................................

91
91
92
93

5

Shetland and Substance Use ..................................................................
5.1 The Alcohol Culture ........................................................................
5.2 The Overall Drug Scene...................................................................
5.2.1 Historical Roots....................................................................
5.2.2 Nature and Mentality ...........................................................
5.2.3 Male/Female Ratio ...............................................................
5.2.4 Availability and Spread of Drugs Inside
and Outside Lerwick ............................................................
5.2.5 Quality and Prices ................................................................
5.2.6 Excessiveness .......................................................................
5.2.7 Intravenous Use....................................................................
5.2.8 Problematic Use ...................................................................
References .................................................................................................

95
95
96
96
97
97
98
102
102
104
105
106

The Features and Descriptive Characteristics
of the Heroin Scene in Shetland .............................................................
6.1 Introduction ......................................................................................
6.2 Noticeability of Heroin Use in Shetland ..........................................
6.3 Size of the Scene ..............................................................................
6.3.1 Number of Users ..................................................................
6.4 Location and Expansion of the Heroin Scene ..................................
6.5 Age Range........................................................................................
6.6 Male/Female Ratio ...........................................................................
6.7 Nature and Extent of Heroin-Use-Associated Problems .................
6.7.1 Financing Use and Habit: Work Instead of Crime? .............
6.7.2 Benefits.................................................................................
6.7.3 Dealing as a Means of Financing .........................................
6.7.4 ‘Skag Slags’ .........................................................................
6.7.5 Community-Mindedness: Protection Against Crime? .........

107
107
107
108
109
109
110
111
113
113
116
116
117
118

6

xii

Contents

6.7.6 Summary and Conclusions Concerning
Drug-Related Crime in Shetland ......................................
6.7.7 Extent of Addictive and Heavy Use .................................
6.7.8 High-Risk Behaviour and Blood-Borne Viruses ..............
6.7.9 Emergencies and Fatal Overdoses....................................
6.7.10 Summary and Conclusions Concerning
Heroin-Use-Associated Problems ....................................
6.8 Availability, Quality, and Price of the Shetland Heroin .................
6.8.1 Intermittent Supply...........................................................
6.8.2 Availability Versus Accessibility .....................................
6.8.3 External Control Through Intermittent Supply ................
6.8.4 Coping Strategies to Compensate
Restricted Availability ......................................................
6.8.5 Quality and Price ..............................................................
6.8.6 Summary and Conclusions Concerning Availability,
Quality, and Price .............................................................
6.9 Patterns of Heroin Use ...................................................................
6.9.1 Common Routes of Administration:
From Smoking to Injecting? ............................................
6.9.2 Polydrug Use ....................................................................
6.9.3 Excessiveness ...................................................................
6.9.4 Christmas Binges .............................................................
6.10 The Shetland Heroin Scene Compared
to Heroin Scenes on the Urban Mainland ......................................
6.11 Summary of the Recent Transitions ...............................................
References .................................................................................................
7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland .....................
7.1 Introduction ....................................................................................
7.2 A Subculture of Diverse User Types and Groups ..........................
7.2.1 Integrated Versus Marginalised
Users and User Groups ....................................................
7.2.2 Hidden Versus Obvious Users ..........................................
7.2.3 Heavy Users .....................................................................
7.2.4 Soothmoothers..................................................................
7.2.5 Occasional or Recreational Users ....................................
7.2.6 Female Users ....................................................................
7.2.7 Users in the Countryside ..................................................
7.2.8 Influential User Groups ....................................................
7.2.9 Young Users .....................................................................
7.3 The Heroin Scene’s Social Network and Mentality:
Subject to an Underlying Spirit of Community-Mindedness?.......
7.3.1 Contact Between the Groups and Circles.........................
7.3.2 Level of Scene Involvement and Position ........................
7.3.3 Supply Structures .............................................................

120
121
122
124
126
126
127
128
128
129
130
133
134
134
135
135
136
136
137
138
139
139
140
140
141
143
151
152
155
156
157
160
160
160
162
166

Contents

xiii

7.3.4

Prevailing Mentality:
Insular and Community-Minded? ........................................
7.3.5 Junkie Mentality in Shetland................................................
7.3.6 Established Norms, Rules and Rituals
Within the Heroin Scene ......................................................
7.3.7 Summary of the Heroin Scene Mentality.............................
7.4 Changes of the Heroin Scene’s Appearance
and Internal Organisation .................................................................
7.4.1 Spread and Growth of the Scene ..........................................
7.4.2 Increase in Intravenous Drug Use ........................................
7.4.3 Transitions in the Overall Scene Mentality ..........................
References .................................................................................................
8

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical
Perspective: Five Distinct Eras ..............................................................
8.1 Introduction ......................................................................................
8.2 The Early Days: Hippies and Oil Workers.......................................
8.2.1 Cultural Conditions at the Beginnings
of the Shetland Heroin Scene ...............................................
8.2.2 A Civilised Friendly Social Scene
of Responsible Older Users..................................................
8.2.3 Using Heroin in Shetland in the 1980s:
‘Same as Having a Drink or a Joint’ ....................................
8.2.4 Ideational Heroin Use Within the Framework
of Small, Select and Secretive Groups .................................
8.2.5 The Golden Light of the Good Old Days.............................
8.2.6 Conditions of Change: A Second
Generation Taking Over .......................................................
8.3 The Era of the Old School ...............................................................
8.3.1 The Old School Style of Regulating the Scene ....................
8.3.2 The Properties and Conditions of the Heroin
Market Throughout the 1990s ..............................................
8.3.3 Police Turning a Blind Eye? ................................................
8.3.4 A Changing Trend: A Gradual Growing
and Opening of the Scene ....................................................
8.4 The Contained Commercialisation:
On the Edge of Explosion ................................................................
8.4.1 Conditions Preceding and Promoting
Spread and Growth of Scene ................................................
8.4.2 Drug Use in a Globalised World1: The British
Heroin-Using Trend Finally Reaching Shetland? ................
8.4.3 Availability and Quality .......................................................
8.4.4 Supply Network ...................................................................
8.4.5 Once Again at the Verge of a Changing
Trend: On the Edge of Explosion.........................................

173
180
184
193
195
195
196
197
198
199
199
200
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
206
207
209
210
212
212
216
217
218
222

xiv

Contents

8.5

The Commercial Peak: Flood Gates Opened .................................
8.5.1 Spreading Out and Noticeability ......................................
8.5.2 Conditions Associated with the Expansion
of the Scene: Supply Network .........................................
8.5.3 Availability of Heroin: Wholesale Supply .......................
8.5.4 Quality and Price ..............................................................
8.5.5 Growing Accessibility and Loosening of Control............
8.5.6 Changes in the Number,
Range and Diversity of Users ..........................................
8.5.7 Problematic Tendencies Associated
with the Rise in Heroin Availability.................................
8.5.8 The Same Trend as on the British Mainland? ..................
8.5.9 The Downfall of the Commercial Peak ............................
8.6 The Current Fragmentation ............................................................
8.6.1 Conditions Associated with Change:
Increased Police Intervention ...........................................
8.6.2 The Fragmentation of the Heroin
Supply and Using Network ..............................................
8.6.3 Availability and Accessibility ..........................................
8.6.4 Quality of Heroin .............................................................
Reference ..................................................................................................
9

10

223
223
225
228
229
231
233
233
240
242
243
243
245
248
251
253

The Current Heroin-Using Trend in Shetland .....................................
9.1 No Heroin Problem at the Moment ................................................
9.2 Further Spreading of Heroin Use ...................................................
9.3 Further Spreading of Intravenous Use ...........................................
9.4 Internal Structure: Impact of the Drug Use
Trend on User Circles and Groups .................................................
9.4.1 The Original Crew............................................................
9.4.2 The Old School Users ......................................................
9.4.3 User Circles in General ....................................................
9.5 Continuing Urbanisation? ..............................................................
9.6 Future Prognosis: Cessation of Commercial
Supply or Recurrent Commercial Loops?......................................
9.7 Conclusions Regarding the Future Course
of the Heroin-Using Trend in Shetland ..........................................

255
255
255
256

The Community-Minded Spirit of the Shetland Heroin Scene ..........
10.1 Strength and Position of Community-Mindedness ........................
10.2 Community-Mindedness, the Overall Scene Mentality,
and the Supply Structures During the Five Eras
of the Shetland Heroin Scene .........................................................
10.2.1 The Early Days.................................................................
10.2.2 The Era of the Old School................................................
10.2.3 The Contained Commercialisation...................................
10.2.4 The Commercial Peak ......................................................

265
265

257
258
258
259
260
261
263

266
267
268
269
269

Contents

xv

10.2.5 The Current Fragmentation .............................................. 270
10.2.6 The Dichotomy of Community-Mindedness:
Social Care and Social Exclusion ..................................... 271
References ................................................................................................. 272
11

Summary of Part II .................................................................................
11.1 Summary ........................................................................................
11.2 Shetland and Substance Use ..........................................................
11.2.1 The Alcohol Culture .........................................................
11.2.2 The Overall Drug Scene ...................................................
11.3 The Features and Descriptive Characteristics
of the Heroin Scene on the Shetland Islands .................................
11.3.1 The Shetland Heroin Scene:
Problem-Reduced and Socially Unobtrusive....................
11.3.2 Recent Changes of the Heroin Scene in Shetland ............
11.4 The Internal Structure of the Shetland Heroin Scene ....................
11.4.1 A Subculture of Diverse User Types and Groups.............
11.4.2 Supply Structures .............................................................
11.4.3 Heroin Scene Mentality: Community-Mindedness
and Cliqueyness ................................................................
11.4.4 Beginning Spread of Mainland
Mentality: ‘Junkie Tendencies’ ........................................
11.5 The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical
Perspective: Five Distinct Eras ......................................................
11.5.1 The Early Days of the Shetland Heroin Scene .................
11.5.2 The Era of the Old School ................................................
11.5.3 The Contained Commercialisation ...................................
11.5.4 The Commercial Peak ......................................................
11.5.5 The Current Fragmentation ..............................................
11.6 The Current Heroin Using Trend in Shetland ................................
11.6.1 Impact of the Heroin Scene’s Momentary
State on User Circles and Groups.....................................
11.6.2 Continuing Commercialisation and Urbanisation? ..........
11.7 The Community-Minded Spirit of the Shetland Heroin Scene ......

Part III
12

273
273
273
273
274
275
275
277
277
277
279
280
280
281
281
282
284
286
288
289
289
290
290

Community-Mindedness and Self-regulation in Drug Cultures

Community-Mindedness and Self-regulation
in Heroin Scenes in the Scientific Literature ........................................
12.1 Community-Minded Orientation....................................................
12.2 Grund (1993): Drug Use as a Social Ritual – Functionality,
Symbolism, and Determinants of Self-regulation ..........................
12.3 Lalander (2003): Hooked on Heroin:
Drugs and Drifters in a Globalised World .....................................
12.4 Kemmesies (2004): Between Intoxication
and Reality – Drug Use in the Bourgeois Context .........................

295
295
296
299
302

xvi

Contents

12.5

Self-regulation of Heroin Use and Heroin-Using Subcultures ......
12.5.1 Scenes of Occasional Users .............................................
12.5.2 Scenes of Heavy, Habitual Users .....................................
12.5.3 The Role of Rituals ..........................................................
12.5.4 Conclusions on the Role of Community-Mindedness
in the Self-regulation of Heroin Use and Scenes .............
References .................................................................................................

305
305
306
307

Explaining Drug Markets and Distribution Systems...........................
13.1 Open and Closed Drug Markets .....................................................
13.1.1 Social Network Markets ...................................................
13.2 Recent Developments Within Drug Markets .................................
13.3 Different Market Systems ..............................................................
13.3.1 Different Styles of Dealing Within a Market System ......
13.3.2 Organisational Structure and Social
Cohesion of Drug Markets ...............................................
13.3.3 Community-Minded Norms According
to Organisational Structure ..............................................
13.4 Trajectories of Illicit Drug Markets ...............................................
References .................................................................................................

313
313
314
315
316
316

317
318
319

14

Historical Transitions of Urban Drug Markets and Scenes ................
14.1 New York Heroin Culture ..............................................................
14.2 Heroin Markets and Scenes in New York ......................................
References .................................................................................................

321
321
322
324

15

The British, Scottish, and Shetland Heroin Trends in Numbers ........
15.1 The British Heroin Trend ...............................................................
15.2 Statistical Information on Drug Trends in Shetland
Compared to Glasgow and Overall Scotland .................................
15.2.1 New Clients ......................................................................
15.2.2 Prevalence of Heroin Use .................................................
15.2.3 Age of Onset of Heroin Use .............................................
15.2.4 Amphetamine Use ............................................................
15.2.5 Intravenous Drug Use in the Previous Month ..................
15.2.6 Age of Onset of Injecting .................................................
References .................................................................................................

325
325

13

308
309

317

326
328
328
329
330
331
331
334

16

Media Reports on Heroin in Shetland .................................................. 337
16.1 Media Reports ................................................................................ 337
References ................................................................................................. 339

17

Heroin Use in Relation to the Location-Specific
Particularities of the Shetland Islands .................................................. 341
17.1 Socio-economic Situation .............................................................. 341
17.2 Crime.............................................................................................. 341

Contents

xvii

17.3
17.4

Geographic Location ......................................................................
Culture............................................................................................
17.4.1 ‘Living Life on the Edge’ .................................................
17.4.2 Community-Mindedness ..................................................
17.5 Conclusions ....................................................................................
References .................................................................................................

342
342
342
342
343
344

18

Explaining the Evolution of Drug Eras ................................................. 347
References ................................................................................................. 350

19

Future Prognosis of the Shetland Heroin Scene ................................... 351
Reference .................................................................................................. 352

Part IV

20

Promoting Self-regulation and Social Integration
of Drug Cultures

A Model of Self-regulation and Social
Integration of Drug Subcultures............................................................
20.1 Practical Recommendations Derived from the Model ...................
20.2 Résumé on the Subject of Society’s
Dealing with Illicit Drug Use.........................................................
20.3 Implications for Future Research ...................................................
References .................................................................................................

355
360
364
365
365

Appendix
Appendix 1: Interview Guidelines ............................................................ 367
Appendix 2: Shetland, Scottish and British Slang and Dialect ................. 369
Appendix 3: Strengths and Limitations of the Study ................................ 370
Index ................................................................................................................. 373

Synopsis

The objective of the empirical study presented in this book was to investigate the
location-specific aspects impacting on the features and social structure of the heroin
scene in Shetland as perceived by local heroin users. Furthermore, participants’
representations concerning the characteristics of various types of heroin users and
user groups as embedded in the overall structure of the subculture were examined.
Characteristics distinguishing individuals and groups comprise, amongst other
things, sociocultural backgrounds, and respective patterns of use predominant at the
time of the interviews, ranging from occasional smoking to heavy intravenous consumption. Hence, included are individuals and groups characterised by controlled,
biographically stable, and socially integrated heroin use, as well as those typified by
heavy, habitual, biographically varying, and socially less integrated use. The research
findings suggest that the island heroin subculture had existed socially unobtrusive
and apparently well-integrated in the Shetland society for approximately two
decades. For this period of time, the subculture quasi-regulated itself. Around the
turn of the millennium, the scene began to lose its internal balance and social
integration due to an array of complexly interwoven occurrences, one being a massive
influx of new users.
The analysis of not only the results of the present study but also comparable
research propose the level of community-mindedness playing a crucial role in whether
a drug subculture possesses the ability to regulate itself and thus to maintain an
inner and social equilibrium. The concept of community-mindedness offers society
a novel and very useful approach to prevent and counteract the development and
expansion of drug use and trade-related phenomena and trends that potentially harm
the individual and/or society. The concept can be employed powerfully by science,
politics, education, health care, police, criminal justice, and practical drugs work
in order to purposefully strengthen a subculture’s capacity of self-regulation. The
prerequisite of implementing this approach implies the ideological openness to
evaluate illicit drug cultures pragmatically according to their actual effects rather
than to the fact that they are illicit and thus generally condemnable. Furthermore,
the understanding is required that drug use and cultures can never be eradicated but
can be approached and handled as to cause a minimum of harm.
xix

Part I

Theoretical and Empirical
Foundations of the Study

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1

Drug Use on the Shetland Islands

Illegal drug, and in particular heroin use, has commonly been regarded as an urban
phenomenon (Dickerson and Stimson 1995; Galt 1997; Barnard and Forsyth 1999;
Henderson 1998, 2000). Heroin with its reputation as the most addictive and destructive of illicit drugs (Goldstein 1979; Zinberg 1984; Erickson and Alexander 1989)
has typically been associated with socio-economic deprivation and marginalisation
(Galt 1997; Barnard and Forsyth 1999; Henderson 1998, 2000; EMCDDA 2005).
Consequently, the vast majority of studies concerned with heroin use and associated
issues have been conducted in urban, mostly socio-economically disadvantaged
areas. Thereby, the impact of location-specific factors, that is, the geographical,
cultural, and social setting, tends to be neglected or even completely ignored. In this
context, heroin use is often automatically viewed as problematic, usually occurring
along with or even causing other socially deviant activities, such as criminal conduct
(Jessor and Jessor 1977; Hall et al. 1978; Donovan et al. 1991; Murji 1995). Due to
the widespread assumption that repeated heroin use inevitably leads to addiction,
heroin use is typically equated with heroin abuse, that is, addicted heroin use
(McMurran 1994; Brown 2004; Kemmesies 2004; Warburton et al. 2005). These
three assumptions – the association of heroin use with urban deprivation, its automatic categorisation as a socially deviant, delinquent behaviour, and the equation of
heroin use with heroin abuse – are widely accepted as conventional wisdom by the
general public, politicians, as well as a large number of researchers concerned with
the investigation of the nature and prevalence of drug use (Harding and Zinberg
1977; Galt 1997; Henderson 1998; Parker et al. 1998; Forsyth and Barnard 1999).
This view can be traced to deficiency-oriented, often medical approaches, used to
explain heroin use that regards using patterns as being primarily determined by the
addictive pharmacology of the drug (National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) 2005;
Goode 2007). Hence, heroin use is predicted to be destructive across individuals and
situations and non-compulsive, that is, controlled use is not considered to be an

A. Stallwitz, The Role of Community-Mindedness in the Self-Regulation of Drug
Cultures: A Case Study from the Shetland Islands, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3861-4_1,
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

3

4

1

Introduction

option (Shewan and Dalgarno 2005). For a long time, medical explanations have
constituted the theoretical basis that informs most investigations in this field
(Warburton et al. 2005). Often, the medical orientation is entangled with moral
aspects since drug and especially heroin use is widely seen as transgressing society’s
boundaries with respect to morally acceptable behaviour (Schmidt-Semisch and
Nolte 2000; Kemmesies 2004; Goode 2007). In 1977, Harding and Zinberg had
already referred to such conventional assumptions as ‘popular mythology about the
evils of the opiates and heroin, in particular’ (p. 12). The two authors, who challenged the customary beliefs about heroin and heroin use more than three decades
ago with their convincing research findings, have pointed out that the automatic
equation of any style of drug use with abuse will inevitably generate a normative
research restriction. Accordingly, no differentiation is made between moderate and
excessive use (Zinberg et al. 1975).1 This biased perspective on the phenomenon of
heroin use allows only a narrow, predetermined range of outcomes. Regarding the
outcome of heroin use to be solely pharmacologically determined self-evidently
leads researchers to expect the same outcome for different individuals.
Depending on the exact theoretical approach used, individual differences are
sometimes considered, though usually in terms of risk, or protection factors making
drug use more or less probable (Türk and Bühringer 1999). Thereby, the consideration of the respective social circumstances beyond the determination of individual
and social risk and protection factors becomes largely unnecessary. Consequently,
individual characteristics, situational factors, and the immediate and wider culture
in relation to specific patterns of use receive little attention. The immediate culture in
which drug use is embedded, the drug subculture,2 is mainly either not considered
or regarded as deviant societal subdivision, where unacceptable and illegal conduct
occurs in concentration (e.g. Lucchini 1985; Surratt et al. 2004). Although Zinberg
and colleagues have emphasised the individually and socially protective potential of
the heroin subculture and drug subcultures in general since the 1970s (Zinberg et al.
1975; Zinberg and Jacobson 1975; Harding and Zinberg 1977), this point of view
has not yet prevailed against the mainstream perception of heroin use outlined
above. Thus, a wide gap still exists between the perspectives of the comparatively
few researchers acknowledging and further exploring the crucial impact of the
immediate and wider social, cultural, and geographic setting on the development of
certain styles of drug use (e.g. Grund 1993; Dean 1990, 1995, 2001; Lalander 2003)
and the mainstream of drugs researchers (Berridge and Edwards 1987; Wilson and
Steiner 2002). The present study is intended to contribute to filling the scientific gap
created by the restrictive conditions of conventional heroin research. Rather than
assuming the empirical knowledge from studies on heroin use and treatment needs
of problematic, urban heroin users to be universally applicable, the supposition
underlying this investigation is that the nature of drug use patterns depends
significantly upon diverse individual factors, the immediate and wider cultural and

1
2

The work by Zinberg, Harding, and colleagues will be discussed in more detail later on.
The definition of ‘subculture’ is provided in Part I, Sect. 2.6.

1.2

Forerun of the Study

5

social environment, and the geographical location. Concerning the outcome of a
drug using situation, these aspects reciprocally influence each other in differing,
complex ways in their effects on styles of drug use (Zinberg 1984; Cohen 1989;
Shewan and Dalgarno 2005). An understanding of the social mechanisms operating
within the surrounding drug subculture, hitherto largely ignored by research,
provides an opportunity to explicate style and nature of drug use. Therefore, the
features and the social structures of the Shetland heroin subculture represent
the central research matter of this study (Northern Joint Police Board 2009, 2010).
When considering the idyllic, sparsely populated, wealthy appearance of the
Shetland Islands with their wide green treeless hills, idyllic bays, and remote location
amidst the North and the Norwegian Sea, an array of different associations cross
one’s mind. These might involve scenic nature, Shetland ponies, birds, seals, knitwear,
Vikings, and maybe the inhabitants’ propensity to consume alcohol. The use of
illegal drugs and especially heroin will most likely not be amongst such spontaneous
images. Thus, the rationale behind carrying out research into heroin use on the
Shetland Islands is perhaps not self-evident (Draus and Carlson 2006; Murray and
Chamberlain 1999; Pasternak 2001; Rist and Watzl 1999; Small et al. 2009).

1.2

Forerun of the Study

Initially motivated by the knowledge of the Shetland Drug Project existing in the
island capital Lerwick, I had conducted an investigation based on qualitative in-depth
interviews with 12 heroin users in Shetland in the summer of 2000. The study aimed
to explore the nature of heroin use in an atypical setting such as the Shetland Islands.
The research question of the examination reads ‘What is it like to use heroin in
Shetland?’ In order to recruit local heroin users with different styles of use, I had
lived in Shetland for 2 months. The study revealed the existence of a highly covert,
small, and apparently relatively well integrated, unproblematic heroin subculture
that had persisted in this state for approximately two decades (cf. Stallwitz and
Shewan 2004). However, around the time of the interviews, the scene was seemingly on the brink of fundamental changes. While, according to interviewees, for
many years, predominantly older, cautious people had been involved in heroin use
and supply, now a group of carelessly consuming and dealing youngsters had begun
to take over. Consequently, the forerunners of a spread of risky, intravenous drug use
and a changing mentality started to become perceptible. To follow up this altering
situation, to find out more about the circumstances of the long maintenance of the
previous equilibrium, as well as about how individual styles of heroin consumption
were influenced by the peculiar island location of Shetland seemed to be urgent issues
worthy of future research. From this explorative study, I had realised how much
invaluable knowledge could potentially be gained from a further, more thorough,
comprehensive, and focussed scientific investigation within a wider framework.
Finally, 4 years after my first data collection, I was able to implement these
research considerations that in the meantime surprisingly no one else had pursued.

6

1

Introduction

Apparently, the Centre for Drug Misuse Research at Glasgow University had played
with the idea of investigating drug use in Shetland but never put their study plans
into action (cf. two unpublished pilot studies by Marina Barnard in 2007). My job
position at the time, a coordinator of an EU study on difficult to reach heroin users
in nine European cities, allowed me to arrange a two months’ stay in Shetland,
during which I would both carry out my work requirements and conduct the data
collection. Meanwhile, the case for an intensive research project had become more
pressing: According to reports by a local newspaper that had been published a few
months before I began the data collection in May 2004, heroin use had begun to rise
unsettlingly in Shetland (Hooker 2004). Over the course of the data collection for my
first study, I had established numerous work-related and social contacts on the islands,
including practitioners, professionals, and politicians in the drugs field, many of
which I could instantly reactivate when I arrived on the island. Particularly important
were the contacts to several of the local drugs workers, who familiarised me with the
different services and facilities of the Shetland Community Drugs Team (CDT), a
counselling and prescribing service for problematic drug users and the successor of
the Shetland Drug Project. They also introduced me to heroin using clients.

1.3

Overview of the Book

This section provides an overview of the individual chapters to give the reader an
understanding of the book’s composition, which is subdivided in ‘Part I: Theoretical
and Empirical Foundation of the Study’, ‘Part II: The Shetland Heroin Scene –
Location-Specific Characteristics and Historical Evolution’, ‘Part III: CommunityMindedness and Self-Regulation in Drug Cultures’, and ‘Part IV: Promoting
Self-Regulation and Social Integration of Drug Cultures’.
Part I: While Chap. 1 introduces the reader to the subject matter, Chap. 2 presents
fundamental definitions, theoretical approaches, and empirical work relevant to the
subject of location-specific perspectives on drug use and drug cultures. Hereby, a
theoretical foundation for the present study is provided. Topics included in this
chapter comprise theoretical of explanations various styles of drug use, qualitative
drugs research, drug subcultures, international location-specific investigations of
drug use, research on drug use on the Shetland Islands, and the specificity of the
island setting. In Chap. 3, the reader receives information about the methodological
underpinning of the present study. Thereby, the significance of qualitative drugs
research, the suitability of the grounded theory methodology for a scientific project
of this kind, as well as the cultural psychology perspective are explicated.
Furthermore, preconceptions prior to conducting the empirical work and the exact
research and data analysis procedures are elucidated.
Part II (based on the accounts of the 24 interviewed Shetland heroin users): Chapter
5 portrays Shetland’s alcohol and overall drug scene, Chap. 6 the features and
descriptive characteristics of the island heroin scene, Chap. 7 the heroin scene’s

References

7

internal structure, Chap. 8 a historical perspective of the scene and its five distinct eras,
Chap. 9 the heroin trend at the time of the interviews in summer 2004, Chap. 10 the
strength of the scene’s community-minded spirit throughout its five eras, and
Chap. 11 provides a ‘Summary of Part II’.
Part III: Chapter 12 presents and discusses the level and role of community-mindedness in
the self-regulation of drug cultures in the scientific literature, illustrated by the
examples of heroin scenes in different countries. Chapter 13 provides empirical
evidence and theoretical explanations of the inner structure and organisation of
British drug markets. Chapter 14 explains the courses and backgrounds of historical
transitions of urban heroin markets and scenes. Chapter 15 presents and interprets
numbers and statistics in relation to the British, Scottish, and Shetland heroin trends.
Chapter 16 depicts media reports on heroin on the Shetland Islands. Chapter 17
explains patterns and trends of heroin use in Shetland according to the island’s
location-specific particularities. Chapter 18 explains the genesis and development
of illicit drug scenes in relation to the surrounding mainstream culture, and Chap. 19
gives a ‘Future Prognosis of the Shetland Heroin Scene’.
Part IV: Chapter 20 introduces a model that explains under which conditions drug
cultures can maintain a homeostatic and socially integrated existence and how this
knowledge can be utilised to effectively minimise individual and social harm associated with illicit drug cultures. Approaches to effective drug policy and intervention based
on the model are introduced.
Appendix 1 provides the interview guidelines of the present study, Appendix 2 a
glossary of Shetland and Scottish slang used in interviews, and Appendix 3 the
strengths and limitations of the present study.

References
Barnard, M., & Forsyth, A. J. M. (1999). Contrasting levels of adolescent drug use between adjacent
urban and rural communities in Scotland. Addiction, 94(11), 1707–1718.
Berridge, V., & Edwards, G. (1987). Opium and the people. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Brown, R. (2004). Heroin dependence. Wisconsin Medical Journal, 103(4), 20–26.
Cohen, P. D. A. (1989). Cocaine use in Amsterdam in non-deviant subcultures. Amsterdam:
University of Amsterdam.
Dean, A. (1990). Culture and community: Drink and soft drugs in the hebridean youth culture. The
Sociological Review, 38(2), 517–563.
Dean, A. (1995). Space and substance misuse in rural communities. The International Journal of
Sociology and Social Policy, 15(1–3), 134–155.
Dean, A. (2001). Complexity and substance misuse. Addiction Research and Theory, 9(1),
19–41.
Dickerson, J. W. T., & Stimson, G. (Eds.). (1995). Health in the inner city: Drugs in the city.
London: The Royal Society of Health.
Donovan, J. E., Jessor, R., & Costa, F. M. (1991). Adolescent health behaviour and conventionalityunconventionality: An extension of problem behaviour theory. Health Psychology, 10, 52–61.
Draus, P. J. & Carlson, R. G. (2006). Needles in the Haystacks: The Social Context of Initiation to
Heroin Injection in Rural Ohio. Substance Use & Misuse, 41(8), 1111–1124.

8

1

Introduction

EMCDDA. (2005). The state of the drugs problem in Europe: Annual report. Lisbon: EMCDDA.
Retrieved June 08, 2009, from http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/annual-report/2005
Erickson, P. G., & Alexander, B. K. (1989). Cocaine and addictive liability. Social Pharmacology,
3, 249–270.
Forsyth, A. J. M., & Barnard, M. (1999). Contrasting levels of adolescent drug use between
adjacent urban and rural communities. Glasgow: Centre for Drug Misuse Research, University
of Glasgow.
Galt, M. (1997). Illicit drug availability in rural areas and attitudes towards their use – Young
people talking. Health Education Journal, 56, 17–34.
Goldstein, A. (1979). Heroin maintenance: A medical view. A conversation between a physician
and a politician. Journal of Drug Issues, 9, 341–347.
Goode, E. (2007). Drugs in American society. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.
Grund, J.-P. C. (1993). Drug Use as a social ritual: Functionality, symbolism and determinants of
self-regulation. Rotterdam: IVO Reeks.
Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J., & Roberts, B. (1978). Policing the crisis. London:
Macmillan.
Harding, W. M., & Zinberg, N. E. (1977). The effectiveness of the subculture in developing rituals
and social sanctions for controlled drug use. In B. M. DuToit (Ed.), Drugs, rituals and altered
states of consciousness. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Henderson, S. (1998). Drugs prevention in rural areas. An evaluation report. London: Home
Office.
Henderson, S. (2000). Sticks and smoke: Country cousins and close communities. Druglink, 15(1),
12–15.
Hooker, K. (2004, February 27). Heroin on increase, said drug workers and police. The Shetland
Times, Lerwick, Scotland, p. 13.
Jessor, R., & Jessor, S. L. (1977). Problem behaviour and psychosocial development: A longitudinal
study of youth. New York: Academic.
Kemmesies, U. E. (2004). Zwischen Rausch und Realität: Drogenkonsum im bürgerlichen Milieu.
Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Lalander, P. (2003). Hooked on heroin: Drugs and drifters in a globalized world. Oxford/
New York: Berg/Oxford International Publishers.
Lucchini, R. (1985). Young drug addicts and the drug scene. Bulletin on Narcotics, 37(2–3), 135–148.
McMurran, M. (1994). The psychology of addiction. London: Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Murji, K. (1995). Drugs. In P. Neate (Ed.), Scare in the community – Britain in a moral panic.
London: Community Car/Reed Business Publishing.
Murray, M., & Chamberlain, K. (1999) (eds.). Qualitative health psychology: Theories and methods. London: Sage.
NIDA. (2005). Heroin: Abuse and addiction (Research Report no. 5). Bethesda: NIH Publications.
Northern Joint Police Board. (2009). Crime situation 2008: Annual report by the Chief Constable.
Area Command Shetland.
Northern Joint Police Board. (2010). Crime situation 2009: Annual report by the Chief Constable.
Area Command Shetland.
Parker, H., Aldridge, J., & Measham, F. (1998). Illegal leisure. London: Routledge.
Pasternak, G. W. (2001). Book review: The pharmacology of Mu Analgesics: From patients to
genes. Neuroscientist, 7(3), 220–231.
Rist, F., & Watzl, H. (1999). The Neuroscientist Modelle der Entstehung und Aufrechterhaltung
süchtigen Verhaltens. In M. Gastpar, K. Mann, & H. Rommelspacher (Eds.), Lehrbuch der
Suchterkrankungen (pp. 39–49). Stuttgart: Thieme-Verlag.
Schmidt-Semisch, H., & Nolte, F. (2000). Drogen. Hamburg: Rotbuch-Verlag.
Shewan, D., & Dalgarno, P. (2005). Evidence for controlled heroin use? Low levels of negative
health and social outcomes among non-treatment heroin users in Glasgow (Scotland). British
Journal of Health Psychology, 10(1), 33–48.

References

9

Small, W., Fast, D., Krusi, A., Wood, E., & Kerr, T. (2009). Social influences upon injection initiation
among street-involved youth in Vancouver, Canada: A qualitative study. Substance Abuse
Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 4(8).
Stallwitz, A., & Shewan, D. (2004). A qualitative exploration of the impact of cultural and social
factors on heroin use in Shetland (Scotland). Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 36(3), 367–378.
Surratt, H. L., Inciardi, J. A., Kurtz, S. P., & Kiley, M. C. (2004). Sex work and drug use in a
subculture of violence. Crime & Delinquency, 50(1), 43–59.
Türk, D., & Bühringer, G. (1999). Psychische und Soziale Ursachen der Sucht. Der Internist, 40,
583–589.
Warburton, H., Turnbull, P. J., & Hough, M. (2005). Occasional and controlled heroin use: Not a
problem? London: King’s College.
Wilson, J. J., & Steiner, H. (2002). Conduct problems, substance Use and social anxiety: A developmental study of recovery and adaptation. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 7,
235–247.
Zinberg, N. E. (1984). Drug, set, and setting. The basis for controlled intoxicant use. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Zinberg, N. E., & Jacobson, R. C. (1975). The social basis of drug abuse prevention. In:
Developments in the field of drug abuse. Proceedings of the National Drug Abuse Conference,
1974 (pp. 3–13). Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.
Zinberg, N. E., Jacobson, R. C., & Harding, W. M. (1975). Rituals and social sanctions as a basis
of drug abuse prevention. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 2, 165–182.

Chapter 2

Theoretical Background and Literature Review

2.1

An Introduction

Diverging conceptual terms and their definitions determine the scientific debate
around the use of drugs in general and of heroin in particular. According to the
respective theoretic stance taken, both termini and their definitions vary fundamentally. Due to the customary assumptions regarding heroin, the technical literature
concerned with the consumption of the opiate is often focussed on patterns of
‘problematic heroin use’. Below, definitions of both ‘problematic’ and ‘unproblematic drug use’ as utilised in the relevant literature and this work are introduced.

2.2
2.2.1

Definitions of Problematic and Unproblematic Drug Use
Defining Problematic Drug Use

Most heroin research is based on quantitative surveys of destructively consuming,
urban users; therefore, heroin use is typically regarded as problematic per se.
Although the majority of studies share similar empirical prerequisites, no single
working definition of ‘problematic drug use’ exists in the scientific literature. On
the contrary, depending on the theoretical approach, an array of diverse conceptual
distinctions is utilised, which greatly complicates the possibilities of cross-study
comparisons. Apart from the widely used medical-pathological definition of drug
use, for example, psychological, sociological, legal, and economic definitions are
circulating. Some sources refer to ‘problematic drug use’ (Frisher et al. 2007),
others to ‘problem drug use’ (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs 1982;
EMCDDA 2009a) and others again to ‘drug abuse’ (DSM-IV, APA 1994), or
‘misuse’ (Nutt et al. 2007). Due to its ambiguity and judgemental connotations, the

A. Stallwitz, The Role of Community-Mindedness in the Self-Regulation of Drug
Cultures: A Case Study from the Shetland Islands, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3861-4_2,
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

11

12

2 Theoretical Background and Literature Review

World Health Organization deliberately avoids the term ‘abuse’ in their International
Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) and
speaks instead of ‘harmful/hazardous use’ (WHO 2009).
The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA)
defines problem drug use as ‘injecting drug use or long-duration/regular use of
opioids, cocaine, and/or amphetamines’ (2009a). This definition does not take into
account the actual nature of drug use in relation to the user’s overall life or society,
but rather labels so-called hard drugs as problematic per se. ‘Hard drugs’ typically
include heroin, crack/cocaine, and amphetamines (e.g. Schmidt-Semisch and Nolte
2000). Concerning the differentiation between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ drugs, SchmidtSemisch and Nolte suggest speaking of ‘hard consumption patterns’ rather than of
‘hard drugs’ to counteract the widespread biases inherent in the conventional understanding of the just named drugs (2000). In addition to the EMCDDA definition, a
large variety of definitions are used by the different European countries. Even within
a country’s borders, definitions can vary, as shown by the example of the UK: In
England, the use of opiates and/or crack/cocaine falls under ‘problem drug use’, and
in Scotland the use of opiates and/or benzodiazepines. Throughout the UK, powder
cocaine use is excluded from the case definition with the exception of Northern
Ireland, which does include powder cocaine (EMCDDA 2009b). The definition
applied by the Scottish Information and Statistics Division within the scope of the
‘Drug Misuse Statistics Scotland’ employs the definition of a problem drug user as
‘any person who experiences social, psychological, physical or legal problems
related to intoxication and/or regular excessive consumption and/or dependence as
a consequence of his/her own use of drugs or chemical substances’ (Advisory
Council on the Misuse of Drugs 1982). With regard to the latter definition, the consumption style and not the substance determines whether drug use is classified as
‘problematic’ or ‘unproblematic’. The weakness of this definition lies in the word
‘problem’ occurring both in the term to be defined and the definition, which causes
a circular argument. This flaw can be compensated by defining ‘problem’ and
specifying the perspective from which the situation is assessed. The definition of
‘problematic drug use’ utilised in this book is oriented towards the above given
definition by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which specifies
‘problematic’ as ‘undesirable and harmful’ and includes the perspective of the individual and/or society. However, the heroin users interviewed for this study, whose
patterns of use match the criteria of ‘problematic heroin use’, are typically referred
to as ‘habitual’, ‘habited’, or ‘heavy users’, respectively, in order to avoid labels that
are associated with devaluating associations.

2.2.2

Defining Unproblematic, Controlled Drug Use

As pointed out before, conventional heroin research does not usually take the
possibility of ‘unproblematic’ use of ‘hard drugs’, such as heroin and crack/cocaine,
into account (cf. Boland 2008). Nonetheless, a decisive body of research on

2.2 Definitions of Problematic and Unproblematic Drug Use

13

controlled heroin and crack/cocaine use exists and is steadily growing, as will be
demonstrated later on. Still, the notion of controlled use of ‘hard’ drugs represents
an extremely controversial issue, far from being treated as a commonly accepted
phenomenon amongst drugs researchers and even less the general public (Harding
and Zinberg 1977; Weber et al. 1997; Strieder 2001; Schippers and Cramer 2002;
Stierle 2005). Similar to the definitions concerning ‘problematic heroin use’ just
discussed, conceptuality in the context of ‘unproblematic heroin use’ also bears
much variation. Many investigations in this area operate with the classification
‘controlled’ (e.g. Cheung 2000; Shewan and Dalgarno 2005); a series of studies
employ attributes such as ‘non-dependent’ (Warburton et al. 2005; McSweeney and
Turnbull 2007), ‘normal’ (Pearson 2001; Hammersley 2005), or ‘occasional’ (Blum
1967; Powell 1973).

2.2.2.1

Social Integration

Virtually all research on controlled heroin and crack/cocaine use is based on socially
integrated, in contrast to socially marginalised or deprived heroin users. Social
integration in relation to heroin users is frequently defined in terms of permanent
accommodation, employment or education, and contact to non-using friends
(cf. Kemmesies 2004; Shewan and Dalgarno 2005; Warburton et al. 2005).

2.2.3

Spectrum of Using Patterns

However, the use of drugs, including heroin, should not be seen as falling in either
the problematic, uncontrolled, compulsive or the controlled, unproblematic category,
but to occur on a continuum with more or less controlled tendencies. Nonetheless,
for research purposes, a cut-off point between ‘problematic’ and ‘controlled’ is
often determined. According to Schippers and Cramer (2002), the use of ‘hard
drugs’ can be regarded as ‘controlled’, when it does not collide decisively with any
personal aims of the individual and is led by rules of self-control that are or can be
made explicit. More specifically, this means that a person is able to interrupt their
habitualised behaviour through their own initiative.

2.2.4

Definitions Employed in This Book

With regard to the heroin users presented in the empirical part of this book, the
classifications just presented are by and large avoided in order to prevent any kind
of valuation and judgement. Within the scope of an investigation based on a constructivist approach such as the present study, a categorisation of ‘controlled’ and
‘uncontrolled’ use conducted by someone other than the interviewee seems

14

2 Theoretical Background and Literature Review

presumptuous. Therefore, basic information about the socio-economic backgrounds
and using styles of each study participant is provided instead, and the reader may
make their own classifications. To indicate physical dependence, the term habitual
is employed. Patterns of heroin use that are characterised by an infrequent,
non-habitual, and non-intravenous nature are referred to as occasional. The two end
points of the continuum of using patterns represented within the study sample
are represented by heavy, habitual, intravenous use and occasional, non-habitual,
non-intravenous use.

2.3

2.3.1

Deficiency-Oriented Approaches: The Prevailing
Theoretical Basis of Most Research on Heroin Use
The Medical or Disease Model

For a long time, medical theories have held a prevailing position amongst the
theoretical explanations of heroin use associated with socially undesirable behaviour
in the Western world (Zinberg 1984; Cohen 1990; McMurran 1994; Peele 1985;
Davies 1992, 1997; Baier 2004; Kemmesies 2004; NIDA 2005; Warburton et al.
2005). From the perspective of pharmacologically and psychiatrically oriented
medical approaches, psychological variables play an insignificant subordinate role,
and the respective social and physical context is not considered. Medical or disease
models (cf. Warburton et al. 2005), as described by diagnostic systems such as the
DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association 1994) and the ICD-10 (WHO 1992),
characterise heroin addiction as a progressive illness, which, due to the drug’s
extremely addictive pharmacological properties, inevitably results from repeated
use of heroin and leads to physical dependence and tolerance (Berridge and Edwards
1987; NIDA 2005; Legnaro and Schmieder 2006). Tolerance in turn implies the
need for an increased dosage to continue achieving psychoactive effects and/or to be
in the position to function, which unavoidably results in loss of control over one’s
body, psyche, and eventually life (Brown 2004). If not treated, progressive psychological and physical deterioration and ultimately death are the likely outcomes
(NIDA 2005; Bernstein et al. 2006). Physical dependence is characterised by
unbearable withdrawal symptoms causing the addict to do virtually anything to
avoid them, including engagement in criminal activity (Davies 1992). The further
the addiction progresses, the more it takes over the person’s life and personality,
gradually depriving them of their own will. Psychological, physical, social, and
moral decay are viewed as predestined results of continued heroin use (McMurran
1994; Hyman and Malenka 2001). This notion of heroin use and addiction has been
repeatedly outlined, for example, by the US American National Institute on Drug
Abuse (e.g. NIDA 2005), who claim to be ‘the largest supporter of the world’s
research on drug abuse and addiction’ (NIDA 2009).

2.3 Deficiency-Oriented Approaches: The Prevailing Theoretical Basis…

2.3.2

15

Biological, Psychological, and Sociological Approaches

Although most research on heroin use is significantly influenced by the assumptions
underlying the just presented conventional medical models, neuroscientific, psychological, and social theories are now exerting an increasing impact on this research
field. A selection of the most widespread ones will be briefly introduced in their
respective main aspects.

2.3.2.1

The Risk and Protection Factor Approach

Heroin use-related issues are often approached with the aim of identifying factors that
put the individual at risk and those that provide protection from the initiation of use
(Türk and Bühringer 1999). In this context, numerous individual and social risk and
protection factors have been identified. For example, family conflict and substance use,
peer influence, living in impoverished neighbourhoods, poor school attendance and
achievement, and individual variables, such as antisocial behaviour at a young age, low
self-esteem, poor coping skills, and low stress tolerance are identified to increase the
risk of beginning to use drugs (e.g. Leukefeld et al. 1998; Goldberg 1999). Positive
family relationships, parental affection, and interest (Donnermeyer et al. 2000) and
principally the opposite of the just listed risk factors have been found to protect against
the risk of becoming a drug user (e.g. Leukefeld et al. 1998; Goldberg 1999).
Furthermore, risk and protection factors associated with genetic (Levran et al.
2008; Kuntz-Melcavage et al. 2009), neurobiological (Shalev et al. 2002), and
psychological dispositions (Klee and Morris 1994; Kirby et al. 1999) are researched
and widely debated.
With regard to heroin in particular, findings of studies taking the ‘risk factor-drug
use prediction approach’ usually reinstate the association between drug use and
socially disadvantaged urban areas and socio-economically marginalised individuals,
respectively (e.g. Nurco et al. 1984; Haw 1985; Haw and Liddel 1988; Parker et al.
1988; Giggs et al. 1989; Domingo-Salvany et al. 1993; Frischer 1995) as risk factors
tend to occur most commonly in socially and economically underprivileged and
deprived city areas.
Various theoretical approaches from the neurosciences, cognitive, behavioural
and social psychology, the social sciences and sociology are applied to explain the
emergence and mode of operation of the different factors that either put an individual
or a population group at risk of ‘hard’ drug use or provide protection. Some of the
most influential ones are presented in the following.

2.3.2.2

The Receptor Model

Meanwhile, neuroscientific models of drug use and addiction have achieved a
relatively wide popularity (Nutt 2003; Angelucci et al. 2007), with receptor theory

16

2 Theoretical Background and Literature Review

constituting a commonly employed example (cf. Schmidt-Semisch and Nolte 2000).
The model relies on the proposition that certain endorphins produced naturally in
the human body during certain pleasurable activities are very similar to morphine.
By using heroin, a person attempts to obtain the pleasurable feeling, so to speak, at
the push of a button, possibly because their bodily reward system is generally understimulated (Rothman et al. 1991; Hurrelmann and Bründel 1997; Gerra et al. 2006).
Dependence develops as the person’s opiate receptors are blocked by exogenous
opiates and their body stops its endorphin production. Like the traditional disease
approach to heroin use and addiction, the receptor model fails to explain non-addicted,
occasional using patterns, and self-initiated cessation of use.

2.3.2.3

Social- and Individual-Psychological Models

Psychoanalytically oriented theories often try to explain problematic individual cases,
thereby fall short in providing a universally applicable theory that clarifies why same
causes can have different effects, that is, cause heroin use and possibly addiction in
some but not in others (Stierle 2005). Psychoanalytic approaches, for example, often
regard ego impairments that result from disturbed mother-child relations in early
childhood as being pivotally causal for later drug use (cf. Kuntz 2000; Laging 2004).
Social learning theories (e.g. Akers et al. 1979; Akers 1985; Niebaum 2001)
explain how different styles of consumption can be learned in a group but not why.
Moreover, hitherto no empirical evidence exists proving an association between
specific conditions of socialisation and heroin use and addiction (e.g. Shewan and
Dalgarno 2005). Generally, social-psychological approaches to heroin use and
addiction typically view heroin use from a deficit-oriented perspective and thereby
focus on problematic patterns of use (e.g. Türk and Bühringer 1999; Kraus et al.
2008). All psychological models of drug use share the disadvantage of explaining
problematic, individual trajectories without illuminating why the same causes have
different effects in different individuals, that is, why some people start using drugs
habitually and others occasionally or not at all.

2.3.2.4

Sociological Models

The labelling approach of deviant behaviour (Tannenbaum 1938) with regard to
illicit drug use became widely known through Howard Becker (1963). The model
explains socially deviant, unacceptable conduct, such as illicit drug and especially
heroin use, as products of societal attributions rather than emerging from individual
characteristics. By accepting and internalising an identity that is commonly regarded
as socially deviant, such as the ‘identity’, deviance is further established and
progresses (Quensel 1973). Labelling theory bears the risk of regarding the socioeconomically marginalised heroin user as a helpless victim of their social circumstances,
thereby freeing the person from their own responsibility.
Subculture theory is based on the assumption that within large social systems
subsystems exist that partly recognise the same social values and norms and partly

2.4

Limitations of Knowledge from Traditional Samples

17

deviate by interpreting the existing norms differently or creating their own (Lamnek
1994). Individual particularities are largely neglected, since deviance is explained
as resulting from sociocultural differentiations. As Pfister points out, ethical distinctions exist not only between the dominant culture and a subculture but also between
individual subcultures (Pfister and Klein 1991). She argues that subculture theory
has managed to move beyond the individual perspective of delinquent behaviour but
ultimately also contributes to the social stigmatisation of groupings deviant from the
social norm. In 1960, Yinger already attempted to counteract this stigma attached to
the notion of subcultures (Yinger 1960). He suggested a general definition of a normative system of groups and groupings within a society that differs from the main
culture by particularities such as language, values, religion, or lifestyle. Nonetheless,
the term ‘subculture’ continues to the present to be frequently associated with social
deviance and delinquency (e.g. Lucchini 1985; Surratt et al. 2004).
In contrast to individually oriented approaches, sociological theories of heroin
use are not limited to personal trajectories. However, here the weakness tends almost
to be the reverse: Aspects of autonomous responsibility over one’s own life, processes
of personal decision making, and general differences are neglected.

2.3.3

Conclusions Regarding Conventional Theories
of Heroin Use and Addiction

It has been demonstrated that all conventional theories of heroin use and addiction
share the weakness of explaining only specific aspects of consumption and dependent behaviour. Customarily, the application of each approach is ultimately based
on the assumption that heroin constitutes a socially deviant, unacceptable, and
instantly addictive drug which therefore automatically leads to dependence and
various other individual and social problems. In this respect, the above-presented
theories are very similar to the medical model of heroin use. The shortcomings of
the focus being on merely specific aspects of heroin use can be compensated by
taking an eclectic approach. This way, elements of different approaches can be combined adequately in order to provide a holistic explanation of the phenomenon of
heroin use. The biased ideologically rooted preconceptions concerning heroin use
will however persist unaffected. This perception of heroin use has largely determined research in this field and has in turn been supported and reinforced by the
findings, which to a great extent is explicable in terms of the characteristics of the
populations from which participants have commonly been drawn (Schmidt-Semisch
and Nolte 2000; Shewan and Dalgarno 2005), as will now be further explicated.

2.4

Limitations of Knowledge from Traditional Samples

Even though eclectic models that integrate medical, psychological, and social
aspects are increasing in significance and spread (e.g. Albertín-Carbó et al. 2001;
Carter 2002; Rumgay 2003), the normative research restriction of equating heroin

18

2 Theoretical Background and Literature Review

use with heroin abuse and thereby heroin problems continues to prevail. Accordingly,
research into the prevalence and the nature of heroin use has primarily concentrated
on use related problems, such as levels of injecting, ill health, hospital admissions,
and drug-related crime (Forsyth and Barnard 1999; Bennett et al. 2006; Razali et al.
2009). These, again, have been found to be most prevalent in deprived urban areas
(e.g. Haw and Liddel 1988; Parker et al. 1988; Giggs et al. 1989; Frischer 1995;
Hay et al. 2005, 2009).
Traditionally, samples of drugs and especially heroin studies have mainly been
gained from drugs’ agencies, prisons, or criminal justice-related institutions, since
these organisations provide the easiest access to drug users. The obvious disadvantage with agency clients and offenders is that neither are representative of the
general drug using population. Bearing in mind that patterns of heroin use – as of
all other substance use – occur on a frequency and intensity continuum with using
styles of drugs agency clients tending to be located at the extreme end of destructive consumption. The case of arrested or incarcerated drug users is often similar,
especially as there is a substantial crossover between the two groups. Examples
constitute the difficult to reach, high-risk heroin users who are accredited to participate in programmes based on the prescription of medical heroin, such as those
being implemented in Switzerland (Killias et al. 2000), the Netherlands (Dehue
2002), and Germany (Verthein et al. 2008). Thus, the knowledge to be gained from
such studies tends to provide insights only into the conditions of heavy, destructive
use of a more or less extreme nature. However, not everyone with the individual
and social predispositions named in the section on risk and protection factors will
begin to use heroin at all, and not every heroin user will eventually consume
destructively.
Such prerequisites – the dominant role of medical addiction models, the concentration on biased user groups, and the focus on risk factors and economically
marginalised settings – all contribute to the cementation of the above-mentioned
normative restrictions, under which conventional heroin research is typically conducted. In this way, the common beliefs about heroin use are inevitably restated as
the approach to the topic is biased from the onset. In this context, Szasz points out
that the physiological and psychological damage on the part of the most serious
abusers of illicit drugs is regularly referred to as proof of this ‘pharmacomythology’
(Szasz 1975).
In order to gain an understanding of the nature of heroin use, less biased
and determined by the just mentioned ideologically informed research conditions, it is crucial and logical to examine the conditions of the whole spectrum
of heroin consumption styles, including both heavy, habitual intravenous as
well as occasional smoking use. The latter, still viewed as an impossible
phenomenon amongst the majority of drugs researchers, will be referred to again
in more detail in Sect. 2.5. Moreover, in order to obtain a comprehensive and
realistic understanding of heroin use, the conduct of qualitative research is
indispensable.

2.5

Qualitative Drugs Research

2.5

19

Qualitative Drugs Research

As has already been pointed out, customary research into drug use issues tends to be
based on quantitative designs. The main reason can be explained by the continuing
dominance of medical disciplines in this research domain, which largely rely on
quantitative study approaches (e.g. Barrett et al. 2008; Fries 2009).
Qualitative research has the advantage of being able to challenge traditional
assumptions and theories (Jungaberle 2007). By allowing for new and alternative
perspectives, it bears the potential to reveal irrational, ideologically rather than
scientifically informed conclusions. Quantitative studies are based on the testing
of preconceived hypotheses, which might unquestioningly be reinstated and propagated. Such aspects frequently influence specifically scientific examinations
concerned with socially stigmatised behaviour such as illegal drug and especially
heroin use. Qualitative research designs lend themselves to the exploration of
areas where no – or only limited, incomplete – scientific knowledge exists, as is
the case with the phenomenon of heroin use in Shetland. Here they can offer a
foundation for subsequent quantitative, further qualitative, or mixed-methods
investigations. Furthermore, quantitative studies, concerned with causation and
frequency and often in the form of questionnaire based surveys, are crucial in
identifying and describing phenomena and trends, but often fall short of providing
suitable explanations. They show, for example, that people take heroin in certain
ways but not how exactly and why. To explain the ‘whys’ and ‘hows’, qualitative
studies are essential. In this way, unexpected social and psychological aspects of
drug use can be illuminated that are often overlooked by conventional quantitative
approaches.
Despite the ongoing predominance of quantitative methods, the past two decades
have shown an obvious trend towards a greater acceptance and acknowledgement
of qualitative drugs research across the Western world (e.g. Schneider 1984;
McDonald 1994; Reinarmann and Levine 1997; Decorte 2000; Beckerleg 2004;
Stierle 2005). This trend is exemplified also by the existence of the Qualitative
European Drugs Research Network (QED), an electronic database that includes
data on researchers, research projects, and publications on qualitative drugs
research (2005).

2.5.1

Qualitative Heroin Studies with Urban Problematic
Heroin Users

In the following, the argument for the crucial contribution of qualitative approaches
to the investigation of heroin use and its surrounding context will be substantiated
empirically with brief introduction of qualitative investigations. Like quantitative
studies, most qualitative examinations are conducted in urban areas with users

20

2 Theoretical Background and Literature Review

recruited through agencies working with problematic drug users. Due to the opiate’s
illegal and stigmatised status, access to heroin using populations is otherwise very
difficult. Consequently, the knowledge of heroin use is also restricted to one end of
the continuum of possible styles, and the key focus is on use associated problems
and treatment needs. Still, invaluable novel knowledge can be obtained, as will be
demonstrated below. This section will be introduced with a widely known study that
has since reached a classical status. Subsequently, research conducted primarily in
Scotland will be introduced, since the Shetland Islands, where the data for the study
presented in this book have been collected, belong to this country.
In their timeless ethnographic masterpiece conducted in New York ‘Taking care of
business’, Preble and Casey (1969) argue against the helpless, passive heroin addict
promoted by disease models. Furthermore, they disprove the notion that heroin merely
constitutes an escape from the psychological and social problems of ghetto life. In the
authors’ opinion, the addicted individual is less addicted to the drug itself than to the
lifestyle and career of a street heroin user and dealer as it ‘provides the motivation and
rationale for the pursuit of a meaningful life, albeit a socially deviant one’. This type
of unexpected conclusion would not have been accessible via a quantitative design
relying on hypotheses formulated prior to the data collection.
The vital contribution of qualitative research has become particularly striking
with the advent of HIV infection and AIDS, as it has proved invaluable in describing
and understanding the social context of risk involved in injecting drug use, and in
assisting with the development of prevention and intervention strategies (Falck et al.
1996; Ward et al. 1996; Fountain and Griffiths 1999; Ball et al. 2001; Renton et al.
2003; Beckerleg 2004; Cattan et al. 2008). Other studies have examined the
motivations underlying injecting and non-injecting drug use (Neaigus and Sifaneck
2001; Davy et al. 2003), the transitions from non-injecting to injecting (Loxley and
Carruthers 2002; Strathdee et al. 2002; Kelley and Chitwood 2004; Spence et al.
2004; Sánchez et al. 2006), and vice versa (de la Fuente et al. 2006). In a comprehensive review of the existing qualitative literature in relation to injecting drug use
and AIDS for the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction
(EMDCCA), Rhodes et al. report about significant studies published between the
mid-1980s and 2000s (2001).
This has been demonstrated, for example, by an examination of the contextual
determinants involved in drug injecting risk behaviours (McKeganey and Barnard
1992; Barnard 1993). ‘Social distance’ between drug injectors has been identified to
exert a powerful influence on the decision to share injecting equipment. However,
on the basis of this unanticipated finding, McKeganey et al. (1997) were in a position to design a further large-scale study with 505 injecting drug users in Glasgow,
combining qualitative and quantitative elements that focussed specifically on the
role of social distance in the decision to share injecting equipment.
As well as providing access to unexpected findings, qualitative methods allow
for the investigation of very specific, subjective matters. Rhodes (1995) examined
the factors involved in the formation of different attitudes and perceptions of risk
with regard to intravenous drug use. More recently, Rhodes et al. explored drug
injectors’ narratives of vein damage and groin injection in the context of injecting

2.5

Qualitative Drugs Research

21

crack-heroin mixtures (2007). Also in the field of injecting behaviour, Wright et al.
interviewed female drug users regarding their experiences of abuse from intimate
partners when being injected with illicit drugs (2007). A further study focuses on
the social relations of hepatitis C risk management amongst drug injectors in London
(Judd et al. 2004). The authors conclude an urgent need for renewed UK harm
minimisation policies to disseminate the perception that hepatitis C is avoidable and
thereby restrict its spread.
Qualitative methods are also advantageous when examining sensitive cultural
factors involved in drug use. Ross et al. found that predictors for problematic drug
use amongst groups of young Chinese, Indian, and Pakistani drug users in Glasgow
embraced being male, the non-importance of religion, and high levels of drug
consumption within the same ethnic group (Ross et al. 2004). Based on this knowledge, culture-specific approaches to intervention can be developed that include
specifically the discovered aspects.
In a discourse analytical investigation, Davies highlights the ideological framework of customary drugs research (1997). On the basis of more than 500 conversations with drug users in Scotland, he shows how conversations about drug use vary
and change greatly according to the context and circumstances. These results
suggest that drug addiction might less constitute a fixed ‘truth’ but rather a highly
subjective phenomenon strongly influenced by the respective situational conditions.
According to the author, explanations that drug users give for their drug use primarily
represent functional statements often determined by the climate of moral and legal
censor, rather than sources of fact.
Results from research with ex-heroin users or heroin users who decided to stop
consuming deliver data that could effectively be applied to the development of treatment programmes. From semi-structured interviews with 70 ‘recovering heroin
addicts’ in Glasgow, McIntosh and McKeganey (2000, 2002) conclude that the need
to ‘repair a spoiled identity’ is central to the recovery process. The authors explore
the impact of rock-bottom experiences, trigger events, and the user’s perception of
the future on their decision to stop drug use.
The vital contribution of qualitative research in the development and innovation
of drug treatment and intervention approaches has been researched and widely
emphasised (e.g. Knight et al. 1996; Ward et al. 1996; Koester et al. 1999; Samson
et al. 2001; Fischer et al. 2002; Fitzgerald et al. 2002; Shakib et al. 2004).
The studies just presented demonstrate that qualitative drugs research allows the
researcher access to novel and unforeseeable information. This knowledge can
effectively be applied in the development of political and practical intervention
approaches to tackle problematic issues associated with drug use. In addition, it
plays a crucial complementary role for quantitative studies, as new hypotheses can
be generated that can subsequently be tested statistically. However, besides being
carried out in urban settings, these and most other qualitative investigations concerned
with heroin use are based on samples of problematic users. However, in order to
develop treatment and policy approaches with a maximum efficiency, the individual
and social circumstances of non-habitual, non-problematic heroin use indispensably
also need to be included.

22

2.6

2 Theoretical Background and Literature Review

Non-habitual, Controlled Use of ‘Hard’ Drugs

In most studies concerned with the use of heroin and cocaine, using frequency and
amounts are examined in order to categorise the behaviour as dependent, problematic
or non-dependent, non-problematic. The difficulties in comparing the results of
studies concerned with non-dependent heroin consumption, due to the differences
in conceptualising non-dependent use, have already been discussed above. Since
controlled seems to be the most established and across studies most similarly defined
term in this respect, it will predominantly be employed in this section, unless the
author of the study being discussed uses a different expression.
Attempts have been undertaken to estimate the prevalence of controlled drug and
heroin use, respectively, in the general population. Hay and Gannon point out that
of the 11 million people in Great Britain (27% of the population aged between 16
and 74) who have ever used illicit drugs, no more than 300,000 (1%) are drug
dependent (2006). On the basis of surveys investigating lifetime prevalence, frequency, and topicality of cocaine and heroin use (Abraham et al. 1999; Herrmann
et al. 1997; Kraus and Augustin 2001), Schippers and Cramer propose an estimated
prevalence rate of controlled cocaine and heroin use of one to two per 1,000 of the
population in the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Germany (2002).

2.6.1

Research on Non-dependent and Controlled Heroin Use

The first published scientific investigation explicitly concerned with occasional
heroin use was conducted by Powell in 1973, in which 12 young adults report using
heroin over three consecutive years without ever having experienced physical
addiction. One factor found to mitigate against addiction was the social environment, including friends. In a qualitative study of 51 non-dependent heroin users in
London in 1975, Blackwell stressed the importance of personal rules and immediate
social norms in regulating use, and identified the processes of drifting, controlling,
and overcoming as components of controlled heroin use (1983).
The majority of studies on controlled heroin use stem from the 1970s to the
1980s (e.g. Powell 1973; Zinberg et al. 1975; Blackwell 1983; Crawford et al.
1983). Some work has also been published throughout the 1990s (e.g. Weber and
Schneider 1992, 1997), and the topic has been increasingly regaining interest
amongst specifically drugs researchers in Great Britain (cf. Dalgarno and Shewan
2005 ; Warburton et al. 2005 ; McSweeney and Turnbull 2007 ) and Germany
(cf. Strieder 2001; Kemmesies 2004; Kolte and Schmidt-Semisch 2005; Legnaro
and Schmieder 2006). Besides, research on controlled cocaine and crack use has
been carried out (e.g. Murphy et al. 1989; Cohen 1989; Cohen and Sas 1992; Pearson
2001; Stierle 2005; Decorte 2007; also see Sect. 2.5 of Part I).
Apart from a few exceptions, the majority of investigations into controlled heroin
use have used qualitative methodologies (Schippers and Cramer 2002). Controlled

2.6 Non-habitual, Controlled Use of ‘Hard’ Drugs

23

and/or socially integrated heroin use still remains an under-researched phenomenon
that is most appropriately approached with an at least partly inductive, explorative,
qualitative methodology. Furthermore, the accessibility of controlled heroin users,
who constitute a hidden population engaging in a highly stigmatised behaviour
(Fountain 2000), is very restricted as opposed to problematic users, who are readily
accessible at drug treatment services (see ‘traditional samples’ above). Therefore, samples
often tend to be too small to lend themselves to expressive statistical inferences.

2.6.2

The Significance of Drug, Set, and Setting
in the Prevention of Problematic Drug Use

To date, an empirical study by Zinberg, Harding, and colleagues on patterns of opiate
use amongst non-treatment users (Zinberg et al. 1975), already mentioned in the
introduction, represents the most frequently cited of its type (Shewan and Dalgarno
2005). Almost every scientific investigation concerned with controlled use of heroin
or other ‘hard’ drugs, such as crack and cocaine, draws on or refers to this early
research. The findings and theoretical explanations of Zinberg and colleagues
principally constitute the original foundation of this research area (also see Zinberg
and Jacobson 1975; Zinberg et al. 1981; Zinberg 1984). Since the research findings
did not support the widespread prohibitionist stance on illicit drug use, media and
governments largely ignored the results (Webster 2004). Both the main aspects of
the study and the theoretical model developed on the basis of its findings are briefly
outlined in the following.
The main part of the study constitutes qualitative in-depth interviews with 61
controlled, seven semi-controlled, and 30 compulsive heroin users in Boston, who
were recruited in the community. ‘Controlled use’ was defined in terms of having
used heroin for at least a year but not to the extent that the person was physically
dependent and/or their use interfered with any area of their lives. The majority of
participants, who were aged between 14 and 70, reported maintaining a stable lifestyle. The controlled using patterns found were viewed to result from the interaction
of the variables present in all drug using situations: drug, set, and setting. Drug
refers to the pharmacological properties of the drug, set to the user’s attitudes and
expectations about the effects of the drug, as well as their personality and drug
history, and setting to the physical and social location of use including the general
culture’s and the specific subculture’s attitudes, norms, rules, and sanctions in relation to illicit drug use and users. The authors contrast alcohol and illicit drug use
with regard to the social costs. Whereas alcohol as a legal intoxicant is subject to
social control, that is, society accepts its consumption under certain legal restraints
and develops a variety of generally accepted informal customs, rituals, and social
sanctions, illicit drug use constitutes a deviant activity outside everyday social customs
and is formally controlled by prohibition. Zinberg et al. argue that their findings of
controlled opiate and drug use in general propose the possibility of minimising the
drug use related social costs through adequate social control.

24

2 Theoretical Background and Literature Review

Probably the most significant and most widely known evidence for the decisive
impact of set and setting on styles of heroin use has been delivered by Lee Robins
and her colleagues (1980). 470 American ex-soldiers were interviewed, one and
again 3 years after returning from the Vietnam War. Before the war, 2% had used
heroin, and during the war, almost half of the soldiers took opiates, mostly heroin,
of whom 20% regarded themselves as being addicted. After being discharged from
the army and returning to their home environment, only 7% carried on using heroin
and less than 1% described themselves as addicted. Thus, even of those 20% who
had perceived themselves as being addicted during the war, only 10% stated that
their addiction had continued back home. The combination of the atrocities of the
war, that is, the characteristics of the setting, which again had an impact on the
soldiers’ sets, and the easy availability of heroin in Vietnam were identified as having
encouraged opiate use in Vietnam and furthered the development of addiction.

2.6.3

Further Research Concerned with the Control
of Heroin and Crack/Cocaine Use

The importance of social norms, rules, rituals, and sanctions in the context of
controlling the use of ‘hard’ drugs initially formulated by Zinberg et al. (1975) has
also been stated by the findings of numerous other studies (e.g. Haves and Schneider
1992; Grund 1993; Cohen and Sas 1995; MAINLINE 1996; Decorte 2000, 2002;
Kemmesies 2004; Warburton et al. 2005; Korte 2007; McSweeney and Turnbull
2007). Most rules entail specific restrictions regarding the set and setting of use as
well as frequency and amount. Examples include the following: to use only when
feeling good, to use only with certain people, not to give drug use a central priority,
not to inject, to buy drugs only when able to afford without financial problem, etc.
The most expressive studies conducted in this context are outlined below.
Between 2004 and 2005, Warburton et al. conducted qualitative in-depth
interviews with 51, and an Internet survey with 72 non-dependent and controlled
dependent, socially integrated heroin users in the UK (2005). Results suggested the
existence of a largely hidden population of socially integrated heroin users consuming
heroin in a controlled fashion over long periods of time. Most participants reported
physically and socially stable lives with employment and often families, and patterns
of heroin consumption ranging from occasional, non-dependent to controlled,
dependent use. Control over use was predominantly obtained by adhering to certain
sets of norms, rules, and restrictions. Between July and November 2006, 32 of the
previously interviewed users were re-interviewed qualitatively (McSweeney and
Turnbull 2007). The majority of the sample reported having reduced or stopped their
heroin consumption while some stated an increase in use and some no changes at all.
Of those who had stopped or reduced, most had done so without any external help.
Herrmann et al. (1997) questioned 17 socially integrated cocaine and heroin users
regarding their ability to control their drug use so as to stay socially unobtrusive.

2.6 Non-habitual, Controlled Use of ‘Hard’ Drugs

25

Participants received assistance through mutual social control within their network
of drug users and the maintenance of relations and friendships to non-drug users.
A decisive empirical input towards the German debate on controlled drug and
heroin use, respectively, has been contributed by Weber and Schneider (1992, 1997),
who carried out an investigation that focussed on the processes involved in the
‘maturing out’ of the dependant and controlled use of illicit drugs in general and in
particular heroin. Altogether they interviewed 60 participants, who were divided
between controlled drug users and ex-users, who had given up their drug use on
their own initiative. From the comparison of the two groups, they concluded that the
controlled use of drugs, such as cocaine and heroin, is possible in a way that is
stable over time and thus does not merely constitute a transitional stage before abstinence or compulsive use. Moreover, they found phases of controlled use to be
common in individuals whose typical patterns of use could be classed as heavy and
dependent. The informal rules which controlled users stated to apply to keep their
drug use unproblematic were similar to those reported in other studies. Weber and
Schneider particularly emphasise the strategy of distancing oneself from the open
drug scene (1992, 1997).
The process of maturing out of or recovering naturally from dependence on ‘hard
drugs’, including heroin, has also been examined by several other researchers, who
drew similar conclusions to Weber and Schneider (Winick 1962; Waldorf and
Biernacki 1981; Biernacki 1986; Prins 1995; Klingemann et al. 2004; Klingemann
2006). Miller and Rollnick point out that with regard to any substance, the majority
of people with long or short periods of use and dependence change destructive
behaviours without any external assistance (2002).
Corresponding with other comparable research, Kemmesies found in his mainly
qualitative study on drug use amongst 169 socially integrated people in Frankfurt,
Germany, that patterns of use were regulated and maintained with the aid of specific
rules and norms (2004). A significant research result was also that some heroin
users stopped or reduced their illicit drug consumption when personal responsibilities
increased (2004). Changes in life situations and styles, such as gaining a higher job
position and/or starting a family, were often perceived as being incompatible with
engagement in illegal scenes and, hence, drug use. According to the principle of
rational choice, substance use was either given up completely, modified, or shifted
to the legal drug alcohol. Users were seen to have ‘settled in’ their bourgeois
lifestyles and ‘arranged’ themselves ‘with’ the requirements of the modified circumstances rather than having matured out. The findings show how consciously
embedded drug use was in participants’ lives and sociocultural worlds.
In a longitudinal study, Dalgarno and Shewan (2005) interviewed 126 long-term
heroin users who had never received any kind of drugs treatment. They investigated
whether this ‘hidden’ population bore resemblances to heroin users at drugs treatment agencies and whether controlled, non-intrusive heroin use was possible over
an extended period of time. The results suggest that participants’ employment and
educational levels were equivalent to those of the general UK population. Moreover,
both intensive, risky as well as planned, controlled patterns of heroin use were found

26

2 Theoretical Background and Literature Review

amongst the sample. Furthermore, numerous interviewees reported patterns of
controlled use that were stably maintained over time.
In one qualitative investigation with 11 heroin users, the author even argues that
participants manage to maintain their social integration not despite but because of
their carefully regulated heroin consumption (Caiata 1996). This outcome has also
been found with respect to club drug users (Moore and Miles 2004).
The application of drug use control mechanisms has also been found amongst
regular and occasional cocaine and free base/crack users (Cohen and Sas 1993,
1994; Decorte 2001, 2007; Pearson 2001; Boekhout van Solinge 2001; Strang et al.
2002; Stierle 2005; Daniulaityte et al. 2007). According to ethnographic interviews
conducted with crack users in Utrecht and Amsterdam (Netherlands), Boekhut van
Solinge found participants to hold knowledge of how to regulate or manage the
undesirable, destructive effects of the drug. This knowledge referred to comparable
rules as mentioned in the context of heroin use control, that is, restrictions of the using
context, regulations for the actual use, ideas for reducing use or not using, alternative
ways of using, and financial aspects. Moreover, this study shows how individuals
employ other substances as forms of self-medication to improve their control over
the dynamic of cocaine.

2.6.4

Practical Application of Findings from Research
on Controlled Heroin Use

Schippers and Cramer have pointed out that research on controlled opiate and crack/
cocaine use would not only assist with the development of more efficient treatment
services but also with normalising the management of illicit substances on the
political and legal levels (2002).
Amongst others, the results of research on controlled substance use can effectively
be applied in harm reduction-oriented approaches to drugs treatment (Rosenburg
and Melville 2005). In the context of alcohol use, controlled drinking programmes
have been established as a recognised treatment option for people with harmful
drinking patterns and have been successfully implemented in many countries (e.g.
Davies 1962; Polli et al. 1989; Heather and Robertson 1982, 1997; Körkel et al.
2002; Körkel 2004, 2005; Klingemann et al. 2004; Klingemann and Carter Sobell
2006). The first steps in this direction are also now being undertaken with regard to
the consumption of illicit ‘hard’ drugs. The treatment programme KISS explicitly
utilises in practice the research findings of studies on controlled use of ‘hard’ drugs
(cf. GK Quest Akademie 2009a, b, c). KISS (‘Kontrolle im selbstbestimmten
Substanzkonsum’ – control in self-regulated substance use) has been developed by
the Quest Akademie in Heidelberg, Germany (Körkel, GK Quest 2005), and is
taught by skilled KISS trainers across treatment agencies in Germany and
Switzerland (GK Quest Akademie 2009a, b). The programme aims to assist the

2.7 Drug Subcultures

27

users of legal and illegal substances, including heroin, to acquire the ability to selfregulate and thus control their substance use. This ability is based on the application of rules that regulate and restrict drug use to an extent that important areas of
the individual’s life are not adversely affected. It becomes obvious that the knowledge gained from the qualitative studies on controlled substance use outlined before
is crucial in developing intervention programmes of this sort. The aim of learning to
regulate one’s drug use, either in order to eventually stop using or to continue using
in a less harmful manner, provides an important treatment option alternative to
abstinence. Thus, substance users who do not intend or are not able to completely
stop consuming and therefore would not participate in or benefit from abstinenceoriented interventions can in this way be reached and treated. The first treatment
results are published on the KISS website (http://www.kiss-heidelberg.de/kissheidelberg/de/6/3/hintergrund/ergebnisse.aspx). Moreover, counselling methods
such as motivational interviewing can effectively be employed in connection with
controlled substance use goals (Miller and Rollnick 2002).
On a conceptually superordinate level, research on control over legal and illegal
‘hard’ and ‘soft’ drugs provides important knowledge for the ongoing debate about
the autonomy and decision-making ability of an individual regarding their personal
substance use (e.g. Harding and Zinberg 1977; Zinberg 1984; Nadelmann 1990;
Grund 1993; Levine and Reinarman 1993; Weber et al. 1997; Levine 2002;
Kemmesies 2004; Legnaro and Schmieder 2006).

2.7

Drug Subcultures

In most of the just cited (and other) studies on control over drug use, the scene or
subculture, in which drug consumption and the social norms, rules, and rituals to
regulate drug use are embedded, is mentioned only marginally. The subculture is
often treated as to provide some details of the social context in which drug use and
related activities take place, rather than being the explicit research focus. Heroin
use, particularly in an occasional, controlled manner, constitutes a largely social
phenomenon, implying that use regulating values and rules are at least partly constructed and developed socially, even if they are ultimately adjusted by the individual
and applied in ways that are personally suited to the user. The overall drug subculture
or an individual’s personal subsection within the subculture represents the prerequisite
for the development and nature of all social customs and standards, including
control norms and rules. Therefore, the investigation of the social world (Schütz
1967) of the heroin scene constitutes a research matter which is as important as the
ways in which people conduct and regulate their heroin consumption. For this
reason, the existing research which explicitly examines the conditions and nature
of heroin scenes will now be presented and discussed. But first, the conception of
subculture and scene needs to be specified.

28

2.7.1

2 Theoretical Background and Literature Review

Defining Drug Subculture and Drug Scene

The Federal Agency for Civic Education (Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung)
defines subculture as a ‘sub-area of an encompassing culture that deliberately
dissociates itself from the prevailing culture in its norms, values and manners […]
Social outsiders often amalgamate in subcultures in order to protect their deviant
conduct from social control’ (2009). It has been pointed out that the prevailing
culture comprises numerous subcultures that can be based on ethnicity, religion,
drug use, or various other affiliations (Golub et al. 2005). A drug subculture can be
specified as ‘an inter-related cluster of cultural elements associated with the
consumption of an illicit drug in social settings’ (Golub et al. 2005, p. 219) and ‘an
adaptive mechanism, which enables drug users to live an ordered social life in the
environment of the conditions given by prohibition’ (Grund 1993, p. 110). Golub
et al. have pointed out that drug subcultures vary concerning ‘the extent to which
they represent an occasional leisure activity versus a lifestyle, an amusement versus
a worldview, and an interest occasionally shared with others versus a group affiliation
demanding limited association with non-members’ (p. 219). Moreover, they contend that individuals differ regarding the degree to which they become involved with
a drug subculture and that they may act in entirely differing ways in diverse social
contexts. The concept of subculture as employed in this book embraces all of the
aspects just presented. Depending on the author, subculture and scene are used
interchangeably or as different concepts. When applied differently, subculture tends
to refer to a stronger, more comprehensive and existential involvement in the partial
culture than scene, and scene rather to a social group based on shared interests,
preferences, tastes, and a ‘we-feeling’ (Babylon Wörterbuch 2009). Throughout the
book, both terms are employed interchangeably. In the empirical Part II, scene
occurs relatively often, since interviewees tend to prefer this term. Whereas in Part
III and IV, in which the empirical findings are related to the existing scientific literature, subculture is utilised more frequently, as other drugs researchers tend to prefer
that term. In the following section, ‘scene’ is employed relatively frequently, as
many studies are introduced that are concerned with the ‘open heroin scene’, an
expression that generally constitutes a fixed term.

2.7.2

Research on Heroin Subcultures

Like qualitative drugs research, the first studies on drug subcultures were of largely
ethnographic nature and came from the urban USA. Due to the research focus on the
complexities of social contexts, these early investigations tended to rely on qualitative, exploratory, mainly ethnographic designs.
The USA holds a pioneering role regarding both qualitative studies on heroin
use, and heroin subculture research that also tends to be qualitative. These circumstances might be explicable in terms of the first qualitative social science studies

2.7 Drug Subcultures

29

being conducted by US American cultural anthropologists, such as Bronislaw
Malinowski (1913). Building on these initial examinations, some years later the
Chicago School of Sociology explored ethnographically various types of urban
subcultures, including the social world of the taxi dancehall (Thrasher 1927) and
gangs (Cressey 1932).
A study of socially marginalised heroin users in New York constitutes the first
ethnographic investigation of a heroin subculture (Feldman 1968). Feldman stresses
the necessity of understanding the immediate social context of the environment
when explaining the spread of heroin use in a New York slum. According to
Feldman, the movement of a large minority of action-seeking youth into a drug
consuming subculture is substantially determined by the commitment to a certain
subcultural ideology relying on a set of values and beliefs. Focussing on the heroin
use surrounding subculture, as well as on subcultural norms, this qualitative piece
of research holds a considerable relevance for the Shetland study portrayed in
this book. The socio-economically disadvantaged, metropolitan setting and the
exclusive focus on a subculture of individuals with addicted styles of heroin use,
however, differentiate the two investigations.
A few years later, Michael Agar analysed the styles of speech of substance users
in New York (1973). In order to understand the natural boundaries of heroin using
subcultures, Agar recommends examining the respective subcultural slang. On the
basis of a slang association test conducted with 83 opiate users, the author concludes the existence of separate subcultural scenes for different psychoactive
substances.
Thirty-five years after Feldman’s pioneering study, Spunt describes the nature of
the current New York heroin scene on the basis of a longitudinal ethnographic investigation (2003). Whereas Feldman concentrates on a specific sub-scene in a slum
area of the city, Spunt refers to the overall New York scene. The author found that
‘new’ heroin users, who started using in the 1990s, tended to be white, partly middle-class, and typically not ‘street people’. Acquisitive crime and violence played a
minor role, as the majority of users worked regularly to finance their drug consumption. Due to intense police pressure, dealing primarily took place indoors and on a
personal level amongst acquaintances, for example, someone’s apartment. Many
consumed casually, some varied between binge use and abstinence and some always
used heavily. Snorting represented the preferred route of administration. Besides
these new ‘trendy’ users, groups of older, often black, heroin injectors also continue
to exist. The author views these users, frequently displaying risky ‘hardcore’ consumption patterns, as being one of the most problematic user groups.
The first European studies on heroin subcultures were published in the 1980s.
Noller and Reinicke’s ethnographic investigation of the open heroin scenes in
Frankfurt and Berlin (1987) constitutes one example. The aim of the research was
to investigate and reconstruct the everyday life of heroin addicts in the context of the
open heroin scene. Relevant perspectives and discourses of heroin injectors were
contrasted and complemented with the accounts of various institutional views.
Heroin users present the scene as providing a space that allows processes of nonpathological individuation and the development of autonomous identities.

30

2 Theoretical Background and Literature Review

Furthermore, the scene conveys self-sufficiency, forms of communication, a selfcontained economy, and a self-created context of meanings and power opposed to
the pressure of state control. However, the misery of everyday life is portrayed by
injectors as subjectively stressful and destructive.
Some years later, Mariak conducted and published a similar study, also in
Germany, that analyses the open heroin scene in Hamburg with the focus being on
social marginalisation (1991). The central question of the investigation concentrates
on why a certain group of mostly young heroin users becomes the target of social
exclusion strategies, and how styles of communication between drug consumers
and representatives of social control contribute in this context.
Von Aarburg takes a relatively specialised approach to investigating an open
heroin scene in his culture-anthropological and ethno-psychoanalytic study of
tinfoil smoking amongst 50 young heroin users in Zurich, Switzerland (1998). By
ethnographic means, this route of administration is put in its historical and social
context while examining the political and economic conditions. Participants were
interviewed concerning the often unconscious profit of their physically and socially
self-endangering heroin using behaviour. Dominant morals and norms could be
accessed by analysing the Zurich street slang that often mirrors values of the
mainstream consumer society.
Research on open heroin and cocaine scenes has also been carried out in the
Netherlands (Grund 1993; Lempens et al. 2003). In his observational, ethnographic
examination, Jean-Paul Grund analyses functionality, symbolisms, and self-regulatory
aspects of drug using rituals of heroin and cocaine consumers in Rotterdam. Drug
users were recruited at public sites associated with illicit drug scenes, such as the
area around the central station. Most of the 192 study participants were unemployed,
many homeless and the heroin (drug) scene represented a central contact point for
75% of the sample. The majority, approximately 77%, of heroin and cocaine users
smoked or ‘based’, respectively, while the remainder injected. Amongst other
results, the findings revealed stable and standardised drug use–related behaviours of
a highly ritualised character. Rituals were found to be of significant importance for
the processes of getting high in smokers and injectors of both drugs. In analytic density
and detail, Grund’s research bears a strong resemblance to the present study.
In a more recent investigation, also located in Rotterdam, Lempens et al. explored
the social context of homelessness within open drug scenes (2003). Adopting an
urban-ethnographic perspective, oriented towards subculture theory, the authors
aimed to explain why one drug user is homeless and another seven are not.
Also based on a predominantly ethnographic research design, Korf and Nabben
examine and describe the diverging crack and cocaine subcultures amongst trendsetting party and socio-economically marginalised youth in the Dutch capital Amsterdam
(1999). Within both subcultures, various groups were examined with respect to the
evolving and differing patterns of crack and cocaine use. Decisive differences were
observed between scenes regarding socio-economic backgrounds, the role of drugs
in participants’ lives, routes of administration, and market mechanisms.
As Grund’s research cited above, Philip Lalander’s ethnographic investigation
resembles the present study (2003). With his research, the author intends to highlight

2.8 Location-Specific Research Perspectives of Drug Use Across the World

31

the significant and rapid increase and expansion of heroin use and the surrounding
subculture in the small Swedish town of Norrköping. Based on numerous interviews
and observations of 25 young heroin injectors and smokers in their early 20s – all
referring to themselves as addicted – Lalander explores his participants’ hidden
subcultural worlds, including issues such as becoming a heroin user, functioning in
the subculture, subcultural norms and manners, and dealing with the police. Lalander
gained access to users with the aid of social workers, treatment staff, and the snowball method, that is, social networking (Biernacki and Waldorf 1981). Largely
avoiding the standard ‘hardship and problem approach’ to the field of heroin use
(Giertsen 2005), the author illuminates using pathways of his interviewees from
recreational to addicted consumers and exhibits the intimate links between local and
global drug using practices.
In its sample size, analytic depth, and breadth, the investigation displays an array
of similarities to the present study. Also, Shetland, located in equal distance between
Norway and Scotland, is likely to be culturally determined not only by Scotland or
Britain but also Scandinavian influences (e.g. Shetland Islands Council 2009a).
However, the investigation also bears many differentiators. Although being a
smallish, provincial town, Norrköping is still of urban character, and the study’s
focus is solely on a sub-scene of addicted heroin users in roughly the same age
group. Nonetheless, both Lalander’s and Grund’s examinations have great relevance
for the present research. Therefore, the results of Grund’s and Lalander’s investigations will be juxtaposed in opposition to the findings of the Shetland study in Part
III. Although primarily concerned with individual use, Kemmesies’ examination,
already outlined in the section on controlled heroin use, also provides important
information about the subcultural circles within which study participants are moving
and consuming. In order to incorporate empirical findings concerning the subcultural
setting of socially integrated, non-habitual heroin users, the relevant results of
Kemmesies’ study will also be included in the juxtaposition.

2.8

2.8.1

Location-Specific Research Perspectives of Drug
Use Across the World
Heroin Use in Non-urban Areas

As has been argued and empirically substantiated, for a comprehensive and
thorough representation of heroin use, the scientific investigation of the whole spectrum of heroin using patterns, use related norms, and the subculture in which use
and norms are embedded is crucial. Equally important is the conduct of heroin
research in non-urban areas. As a result of a traditional ‘lack’ of striking drugs
problems and consequently drug treatment services, research has hitherto largely
neglected non-urban and rural areas. Thus, drug use in general and heroin use in
particular still continue to be considered as predominantly urban rather than rural

32

2 Theoretical Background and Literature Review

phenomena (e.g. Dickerson and Stimson 1995; Henderson 2000; Baier 2004).
Consequently, current knowledge of rural drug use is still limited (Gardner and
Peck 1996; Forsyth and Barnard 1999; Henderson 2000; Brown and Smith 2006;
Oser et al. 2009). Notwithstanding, between 1993 and 1996, the Scottish Crime
Survey reported significant levels of drug use in both urban and rural areas of
Scotland (Hammersley 1994; Anderson and Frischer 1997). Approximately 10 years
later, the levels of problem drug use (opiate and benzodiazepine use and injecting)
in some rural areas in Scotland were already being assessed as ‘comparatively high’
(Hay et al. 2005). A few years later, additional areas were designated as being
characterised by levels of ‘comparatively high’ problem drug use (Hay et al. 2009).
A considerable rise in heroin use has been reported in many countries across the world
(e.g. Tunnell 2006; Trujillo 2006; Shaw 2006; Izugbara 2005; Baier 2004), as will be
demonstrated in the review of the relevant empirical evidence outlined below.

2.8.2

Defining ‘Rural’

No common definition of ‘rural’ exists in the literature. Most drugs research has
used descriptive, quantifiable criteria to identify rural areas, such as population size
and density and geographic location and accessibility. Furthermore, economic and
employment issues have been examined. Quantifiable criteria can describe the outer
appearance of places but not their inner structure and way of functioning, which are
determined by the way people think, their beliefs, values, and norms. Beliefs, values,
and norms in turn determine peoples’ social behaviour, including drug use. These
more qualitative aspects could be summarised as ‘sociocultural criteria’. In order to
optimally specify the ‘rurality’ of a location, quantitative, descriptive, and qualitative
sociocultural criteria should be applied.
The Scottish Executive Urban Rural Classification 2005–2006 employs the criteria
size and geographic accessibility to urban areas to categorise places in Scotland as
‘rural’ or ‘urban’. Accordingly, the classification system differentiates urban areas
as large urban areas, other urban areas, accessible small towns, remote small towns,
and very remote small towns. Rural areas are divided into accessible rural areas,
remote rural areas, and very remote rural areas (Scottish Executive 2006).

2.8.2.1

‘Rurality’ of Shetland

With its sparse population and 12-h ferry distance from the nearest cities, Aberdeen
in Scotland and Bergen in Norway, the whole of Shetland is either categorised as a
‘very remote small town’ (3,000–10,000 inhabitants and more than 60 min driving
distance to the nearest town with more than 10,000 inhabitants) or as a ‘very remote
rural area’ (less than 3,000 inhabitants and more than 60 min driving distance to the
nearest town with more than 10,000 inhabitants). While the capital Lerwick is
categorised as a ‘very remote small town’, the complete remainder falls into ‘very
remote rural area’.

2.8 Location-Specific Research Perspectives of Drug Use Across the World

33

However, as mentioned above, these criteria solely embrace quantifiable aspects.
Merely judged by its geographical isolation and its 6,570 inhabitants, a town like
Lerwick may at first sight appear relatively rural. With respect to sociocultural criteria,
however, the situation appears more complex and differentiated. The town represents
by far the largest place and community in Shetland, as the population of the next
biggest town, Scalloway amounts to only 870 (Shetland Islands Council 2009c).
Lerwick is equipped with a busy industrial and passenger port which gives the town
a more urban character than other locations of similar size and remoteness. With an
overall population of almost 22,000, the Shetland Islands seem generally very rural
(Scottish Executive 2004). Still, Sullom Voe in the remote north of the island constitutes one of the biggest oil ports in the world (Shetland Islands Council 2009b)
and attracts a large influx of foreign oil workers from mainland Britain (Wills 1991).
Thus, this internationally significant industry outpost contributes an urban note to
the otherwise rural appearing character of the island group.
On the other hand, further rural or non-metropolitan aspects are created by the
rather restricted sociocultural infrastructure which lacks institutions such as a
theatre, a cinema, or a university. Shetland’s social culture is mainly defined in
terms of its lively private party and Lerwick pub scene, as well as by diverse folk
and maritime festivals and festivities (Visit Shetland 2009). Hence, apart from the
aforementioned exceptions, the Shetland way of life may be regarded in large parts
as comparatively traditional and non-metropolitan.

2.8.3

Excursion into the Empirical Evidence of Non-urban
Drugs Research Across the World

The knowledge of rural or, more generally, location-specific drug use (Dean 1990,
1995; Forsyth and Barnard 1999) in Europe hitherto remains restricted. Only for
about a decade now, European drugs researchers are beginning to pay attention to
drug, and specifically heroin use in non-urban districts. However, the accumulating
international evidence in this area proves the significance of the subject matter.
Similar to qualitative investigations of heroin use and heroin subculture studies, US
American academics are also pioneers in this field. For almost two decades, a
considerable research interest has been taken in marijuana and other illegal drug use
amongst rural or non-metropolitan youths (e.g. Wargo et al. 1990; Edwards 1992;
Donnermeyer 1992; Donnermeyer et al. 2000).
In the following section, a comprehensive excursion will be taken into the international empirical evidence of drug, and specifically heroin consumption in regions
beyond urban agglomeration. Hereby, the reader is put in a position to gain a rough
overview of the spread, the extent, and the location-specific particularities of heroin
use in very diverse locations across the world. For this reason, the most expressive
and interesting research from each continent and socio-geographically unusual
locations is included. The latter demonstrate the necessity of adding the broader
conception of location-specific to the categorisations of rural and urban. Due to the

34

2 Theoretical Background and Literature Review

Shetland Islands belonging to Great Britain, British and especially Scottish research
has been selected explicitly over studies from other European countries.

2.8.3.1

Research on Drug Use in Rural US America

In the early 1990s, Joseph Donnermeyer, one of the leading US American researchers
in the field of non-urban drug use, published a review of 65 studies concerned with
the prevalence of substance use amongst rural youth in the United States (1992). On
this basis, he concludes that minimal differences exist between rural and urban
youth with respect to alcohol and marijuana consumption. The use of other drugs
varied between urban and rural youth, according to substance and study. The consumption of inhalants tended to be more prevalent in rural areas (Johnston et al. 1993;
Peters et al. 1992), while cocaine use was more prevalent in urban areas (Johnston
et al. 1993; Peters et al. 1992; Leukefeld et al. 1992). Stimulant use sometimes
dominated in rural (Gleason et al. 1991; Johnston et al. 1993) and sometimes in
urban areas. Heroin, sedative, hallucinogen, and LSD consumption were found to
be higher amongst urban youth. Overall, these findings suggest that adolescent drug
use is not restricted to metropolitan areas. The discrepancies that do exist in drug
prevalence between rural and urban areas might be explained in terms of differences
in availability and preferences for the various drugs.
Based on a literature review conducted in the mid-1990s, Weisheit and Wells
suggest like Donnermeyer similar drug use rates in urban and rural America and
differences in the types of drugs consumed (1996). Levels of drug use-related crime
were found to be considerably lower in rural districts, where close personal and
community connections inhibit local crime and encourage supervision.
Since then, a number of studies have been carried out on drug, including heroin
use in rural Northern America. Motivated by the very restricted knowledge about
HIV and transmission routes in less populated areas, Logan et al. contrasted the real
and perceived HIV risk amongst out-of-treatment drug injectors in counties with
high, medium, and low population densities in six states including Washington, DC
(2001). Risk was perceived to be smaller in areas with lower population densities
than in high-density areas. Accordingly, the authors recommend intensified HIV
risk awareness training and interventions in less populated districts. Another investigation found substance use treatment needs of prison inmates with rural residencies to be different in some ways to those with metropolitan addresses (Stephens
and Lo 2002). In a previous study, Leukefeld et al. had found little difference in
drug use between rural and urban incarcerated prisoners before incarceration (2002).
The authors inferred rural and urban drug users to be similar with rural areas being
a protective factor for the use of some drugs, such as cocaine and heroin, but also to
be a greater risk factor for other drug use such as alcohol and sedatives. As in other
studies, differences in drug preferences were associated with differences in availability. More recently, Godlaski et al. interviewed drug users in two rural and one
urban region in Kentucky (2006). Findings suggest somewhat lower rates of current
drug use and an older age of initial use in very rural areas. However, globalisation

2.8 Location-Specific Research Perspectives of Drug Use Across the World

35

and mass communication continue to decrease the previous cultural isolation of
non-urban regions, thereby reducing the differences in drug use rates between
metropolitan and non-metropolitan districts. Another recent exploratory, qualitative
study investigates the social context associated with initiation to heroin injecting in
rural Ohio (2006). Semi-structured interviews with 25 recent heroin injectors
revealed curiosity, perceived economic pressures, drug dependence, and intimate
and group relations to be involved in overcoming fears associated with injection.

2.8.3.2

Research on Drug Use in Rural Australia

Since the late 1990s, rural drug, including heroin use, has also begun to be regarded
as a serious, research-worthy phenomenon in rural Australia. Repeat cross-sectional
surveys on patterns of drug use and blood-borne viral infections in clients of a needle
exchange service in rural Darwin, Australia, revealed the most common drug of
choice to be heroin and the most frequently injected drug morphine. HIV and
hepatitis B and C were present amongst intravenous drug users, and the risk of further
spread was anticipated. Hence, the authors recommend an enhancement of needle and
syringe availability and future research into the characteristics and conditions of
injecting drug use in non-urban Australian areas.
Based on the 1996 Australian Census of Population and Housing and data on
drug-related offences from the New South Wales police between 1995 and 1999,
Jobes et al. analysed the relationship of illicit drug use and socio-economic features
of rural communities in New South Wales, Australia (2002). Drug arrests were
found to be relatively evenly distributed in rural NSW, giving rise to the assumption
that the underlying causes for drug offences are unique when compared to other
types of crime that varied considerably across types of communities.
Another Australian investigation compared patterns and harms of drug use and
service utilisation amongst rural and metropolitan injecting drug users (Day et al.
2006). Standardised, structured interviews were conducted with 164 rural and 96
metropolitan drug injectors who were recruited through drugs agencies, snowballing,
and advertisements. Socio-economic features and sharing of injecting equipment
were similar in the two groups. While rural users reported less daily heroin injecting,
they were more likely to have injected morphine in the last month. Moreover, harm
minimising services were less likely to be accessed and utilised by rural participants,
pointing to the necessity for further research and service considerations. Again, a
qualitative research design could be very helpful in this context.
A relatively recently published investigation analysed barriers to the implementation, access to, and success of harm minimising strategies as seen by health
professionals in rural Australia (Peterson et al. 2007). About 50% of interviewed
health-care professionals felt that intravenous drug use was rising in their area, heroin
being the most prevalent drug used in the majority of examined states. Improvements
and innovations concerning the implementation of harm minimising strategies in
rural Australia were strongly recommended by the authors.

36

2.8.3.3

2 Theoretical Background and Literature Review

Research on Drug Use in Rural Europe

As mentioned above, for about a decade European drugs researchers are increasingly
recognising the growing evidence of illicit drug use in countryside regions, and
consequently the urgent research necessity concerning this phenomenon. On balance,
the results of European studies resemble the previously reported outcomes of the
US and Australian rural drugs research.
A Dutch paper published in 1999 reports on a survey on drug use and lifestyle,
conducted in 1997 with 22,000 participants throughout the Netherlands (Abraham
1999). Outcomes suggest differences in drug use prevalence between urban and
rural areas. Other examined aspects, however, such as age of initial drug use were
found to be unaffected by population density. Some of the revealed discrepancies
were associated with divergences in lifestyles common at the various places.
Based on the absence of research on substitution treatment in rural areas in
Germany, Baier conducted an investigation into the conditions of substitute prescribing practices in Lower Saxony in northern Germany (2004). For this purpose,
opiate-dependent patients receiving substitute prescriptions in a specialised practice
in a rural medical practice and substitute prescribing doctors in two village practices
and one small town practice with large rural catchment areas were interviewed
qualitatively. Additionally, quantitative information on the demographic backgrounds
of patients were collected and analysed. Treatment barriers and countryside-specific
needs, such as service deficiencies and spatial distances, were examined, and
suitable solutions, such as take-home regulations, substitute home delivery, and
network co-operation between social services, were explored and defined.

2.8.3.4

Research on Drug Use in Rural England and Scotland

From their survey of legal and illegal substance use amongst 7,722 teenagers, Plant
and Miller inferred the increasingly widespread use of illicit substances by both
urban and rural British youth (1999). On the basis of capture-recapture studies with
drug users recruited at drug treatment agencies and the criminal justice system in
rural Norfolk, England, both problematic drug use and acquisitive crime were found
to be higher than previously assumed (Hay and Gannon 2006).
In the late 1990s, Jones et al. investigated substance use and knowledge amongst
school children in Fife, Scotland (1997). Findings demonstrated that the consumption of illicit drugs was not restricted to metropolitan areas. The authors emphasised
the essential role of schools in providing drugs education and other forms of
preventative measures.
In order to examine patterns of drug use in the Scottish highlands, Gardner and
Peck (1996) interviewed 106 participants consisting of drugs agency, prison and
community drug users using both quantitative and qualitative methods. Overall, the
data suggested that patterns and frequency of drug use amongst illicit drug users in
rural areas are not substantially different from those in urban areas and that rural
injecting levels were at least as high as urban ones. Amongst the community drug

2.8 Location-Specific Research Perspectives of Drug Use Across the World

37

users, opiates were ever used by 34% compared to only 16% of the prisoners. This
was an unexpected finding, as heroin use amongst drug using prison populations is
usually known to be higher than amongst non-incarcerated drug users (Hammersley
1994). Another interesting outcome was that despite high levels of poly-drug use in
the previous year, most respondents did not perceive themselves as experiencing
any drug-related psychological, financial, social, legal, or medical problems.
Forsyth and Barnard (1999) compared patterns of drug use of Scottish pupils in
deprived city neighbourhoods and affluent rural areas of Dundee and Perth &
Kinross, respectively. Higher levels of deprivation and lower levels of school
achievement were found in the urban sample. However, the socio-economic differences were not reflected in levels of reported lifetime drug use, merely the drug
preferences differed somewhat. ‘Magic mushrooms’ (psilocybin-containing wild
mushrooms) were more common amongst rural participants, as they naturally occur
in the countryside. Astonishingly, the only drug significantly more used by rural
than urban pupils was heroin.
In order to estimate the prevalence of opiate and benzodiazepine use in the
Grampian Health Board area, Scotland, Hay et al. (2001) applied capture-recapture
analyses to six distinct sources of data with unequal coverage of the geographical
area. Two percent of the population of Aberdeen aged 15–54 years were estimated
to use opiates and benzodiazepines, while the percentage for the population of a
town in the north of Aberdeenshire was 2.5%. According to the authors, the capturerecapture method might be difficult to apply in all settings. However, it can give
valuable information, particularly regarding the spread of drug use from cities to
rural areas.

2.8.4

Location-Specific Drugs Research

The findings of the studies described above clearly demonstrate that drug use does
not exclude rural districts. However, when attempting to define ‘rural’ at the beginning of Sect. 2.7, the difficulties with specifying the ‘rurality’ of a place comprehensively, on the basis of descriptive, quantitative, and qualitative criteria, became
obvious. Therefore, it might be advantageous to adopt a ‘location-specific’ rather
than a ‘rural’ drugs research perspective, that is, taking the specific impact of the
individual location into account when analysing social, including drug using,
behaviour. This approach proves particularly suitable with respect to continents and
countries where little drugs research exists. Although most research on drug use in
general and rural drug use in particular has been conducted in the Western world –
primarily USA, Australia, and Europe – a growing body of studies from other parts
of world also exists, including Asia, Arabia, Polynesia, and Central America.
As illustrated above, illicit drug use in Western cities, towns, and countryside
regions bears many parallels. Western locations often resemble each other in
cultural and social structures and therefore also concerning drug use patterns and
trends. Hence, transfers of research findings from one Western country to another

38

2 Theoretical Background and Literature Review

are possible as long as considering the country- or continent-specific peculiarities.
However, as will be demonstrated below, transfers from Western to non-Western
places or Western places with very idiosyncratic sociocultural backgrounds, geographic
locations or conditions, and historical imprintings, respectively, are often neither
justified nor sensible.

2.8.4.1

Research on Drug Use in Rural Arabia and Asia, Polynesia,
Central- and Very Remote North America

Mojtahedzadeh et al. investigated the characteristics of 478 active opium and heroin
users who enrolled in a drug treatment clinic in rural Iran (2008). On treatment
entry, 23% of the sample reported injecting, of whom 73% stated sharing injecting
equipment. Of 65 drug users tested for HIV, 72% tested positive. As a consequence
of the demonstrated HIV risks existing in rural Iran, the authors point to the urgent
need for the further development of prevention and treatment measures within local
health-care systems.
In a qualitative investigation, Waitzfelder et al. explored the magnitude of the
substance-using problem, the unmet treatment needs, and the relevant locationunique features in Hawaii. Local health-care practitioners from 55 human service
organisations most affected by the drug problem were interviewed (Waitzfelder
et al. 1998). Respondents assessed levels of problematic substance use in Hawaii to
be at least as high as on the North American mainland. Rises in heroin and crystal
methamphetamine use were perceived to be most alarming, and attitudes within
communities to accept, excuse, or deny substance use were regarded as aggravating
the problematic extent. Both service delivery problems, such as transport, staff
training, and outreach programmes, and culture-specific factors were identified as
treatment barriers. The authors urgently recommend further research into the
cultural aspects inhibiting people in need from seeking assistance, general, statewide
educational advertising, and considerable expansions and innovations in the existing
care system.
A combination of documentary and ethnographic measures was employed to
explore drug use in rural Mexican communities and its relationship to social
cohesion, cultural identity, migration, and trans-culturation (Aldaz et al. 2002). The
results demonstrate greater levels of social cohesion, cultural identity, and capacity
for integrating changes in communities with no or little drug use. These findings
were particularly prevalent concerning young Mexicans who have had contact with
the outside world in terms of North American culture, urban Mexican culture, and
drug trafficking.
The qualitative, exploratory studies carried out in Hawaii and Mexico clearly
show the significant influence of sociocultural aspects on patterns of drug use,
related behaviours, and the preparedness to seek assistance. The importance of
understanding the respective sociocultural and socio-geographic contexts when
explaining trends in patterns of illicit drug use is also demonstrated in the Asian
investigations introduced below.

2.8 Location-Specific Research Perspectives of Drug Use Across the World

39

According to Chengzheng et al., China has faced a drug and especially a heroin
problem since the late 1980s (2004). At that time, most dependent drug users still
solely smoked opium with merely a small proportion smoking heroin. The use of
heroin was restricted to border regions in the southwest and rural areas in the northwest; however, it began to spread rapidly in the early 1990s. By the end of 2002,
empirical evidence shows that the number of addicted heroin injectors had risen
from 70,000 in 1990 to one million. Zheng et al. examined the prevalence of drug
injection amongst drug users, the seroprevalence of HIV and related risk behaviours
amongst injectors, and the heterosexual transmission of HIV amongst intravenous
drug users and their spouses. Eight hundred and sixty drug users were recruited in
seven rural counties in southwest China (1994). The results revealed an injection
rate amongst drug users of 33% of whom 64% injected at least once a day. Of injectors,
49% tested HIV-positive and 62 wives of HIV-positive participants (10%) also
tested HIV-positive. None of the couples used condoms when having sex. HIV seropositivity was independently correlated with a longer history of injecting, daily
injecting, frequent needle-sharing, being younger, and living in Ruili County. The
explosive HIV epidemic amongst drug injectors in southwest China was related to
the introduction of HIV into drug using subcultures and the rapid increase in heroin
injecting amongst this population. The authors recommend the immediate implementation of AIDS prevention measures, including the discouragement regarding
shifting from smoking opium or heroin to injecting heroin, needle-sharing, and
unprotected sex.
The outcomes of a recent literature review of studies on addictive drug use, its
prevalence, correlates, and patterns in Vietnam, fit in well with the just described
conditions. Similar to the situation in China outlined above, illicit drug, and particularly heroin use spread from remote, rural to urban regions rather than vice versa
and illustrated in virtually all other studies previously presented in the context of
rural drug use across the world. Until the 1990s, Vietnamese illegal drug use, mainly
opium smoking, took place above all in rural, mountainous regions. According to
Nguyen and Scannapieco, drug use has trebled over the past 10 years, and heroin
has simultaneously replaced opium to now constitute the most preferred illicit drug
on the Vietnamese drug market (2008). Additionally, the average age of first drug
consumption has declined, and the proportion of female users risen. Injecting has
exceeded smoking and gained priority, especially amongst heroin users. The authors
conclude that patterns of drug use have changed radically over the past decade and
further research is urgently needed to better understand the context and the
circumstances, and to inform prevention and control policies.
Radical changes in the illicit drug scene have also been reported in another very
remote region of the world – the Alaskan city Anchorage. On the basis of data from
the Alaska Native Preschool Project, interviews with 342 preschool parents, observational data, and a review of public records, Hardenbergh et al. examined the extent
of alcohol and other drug use in two representative native villages near the Bering
Sea in the early and mid-1990s (1999). Qualitative data suggest an array of problems associated with alcohol and other drug use. Levels of smokeless tobacco were
found to be 10 times higher than in US America and the use of marijuana nearly

40

2 Theoretical Background and Literature Review

three times higher. However, compared to the USA, levels of alcohol and other drug
consumption were lower and significantly lower, respectively. About a decade later,
local newspaper articles suggest a considerable increase in the use of especially
heroin but also various other illicit drugs including marijuana, cocaine, crack, and
methamphetamine (Halpin 2008; Simon 2009). Local police and authorities report
enormous increases in legal, social, and medical heroin cases for regions of easier
accessibility and a more metropolitan character, such as Anchorage with almost
280,000 inhabitants. Although according to the deputy commander of the Alaska
Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Enforcement, heroin still represents an urban phenomenon, this trend most likely foreshadows later developments in more rural and
remote regions (Halpin 2008).
Concerning a country very different and far away from Britain, Sharma has
delivered a fascinating sociocultural perspective of substance use in the pluralistic
and diverse culture of India (1996). The country has a history of the use of psychoactive plant products, such as cannabis and opium, and home-brewed alcoholic
beverages, within a defined sociocultural framework of five millennia. Referring to
cross-sectional epidemiological studies in the field of substance use in different
parts of India, Sharma describes how caste, religion, local customs, and traditions
play a significant role in the choice of drugs, their consumption, and their control in
rural and semi-urban populations. With respect to urban populations, the intercultural barriers are diminishing with the result that even previously alien drugs such
as heroin have been introduced. The changes to the drug scene and the inevitable
sociocultural consequences lend themselves to further scientific enquiry, thereby
considering the impact of global drug trends on areas that had previously been
excluded from the use of certain substances.
Findings of Western studies largely agree in terms of indicating a general rise in
illicit drug, and specifically heroin use as well as injecting in rural and remote areas.
With certain delays of respectively differing lengths of time depending on country
and socio-geographic location, the drug using situation in rural areas appears to
gradually be adapting to urban regions, which may be explicable in terms of a
worldwide globalisation. Similar trends can also be derived from the Iranian,
Mexican, and Hawaiian studies and the recent developments described by Alaskan
newspapers. Regarding China and Vietnam, however, the situation is portrayed
differently in so far, as that illicit drug and particularly heroin use have not spread
from urban to rural regions but the other way round. In order to explain these
circumstances, the sociocultural and socio-geographic backgrounds need to be
explored, preferably at least partly with the aid of qualitative research designs.

2.8.4.2

Location-Specific Drugs Research in Scotland

Anderson and Frischer (1997) used information from the 1993 to 1996 Scottish
Crime Surveys to examine potential changes in the relationship between drug use
and population density in Scotland. Whereas in 1993, respondents living in larger

2.9

Published and Unpublished Research on Drug Use in Shetland

41

towns were more likely to have used drugs recently, by 1996 the probability to have
used drugs for respondents living in smaller towns and villages had adapted.
Stimulant use was found to be stable in larger towns but to have increased in rural
areas. Cannabis use declined in rural but increased in urban environments. While
opiate use was concentrated in cities in 1993, by 1996 it had diffused also to suburban and rural areas. Even though the authors regard this investigation as very valuable
in demonstrating the potential use of population surveys in describing geographical
aspects of drug use, they call for more research to be able to actually understand the
diffusion of drug use from urban to rural areas.
Two studies that explicitly examine the location-specific factors involved in
patterns of alcohol and drug use have been carried out on the Western Isles in
Scotland (Dean 1990, 1995). The author emphasises the complex interplay between
the individual, their community, and elements of social structure (Dean 1990, 1995,
2001). According to Dean, aspects such as geographic remoteness, social proximity
to substance use and supply, and incomer influences decisively determine the patterns
of substance use found on the islands investigated. Amongst the existing drugs
research, the settings of Dean’s examinations are probably the closest in geographic
characteristics to the Shetland Islands, although the latter is located considerably
more remote.

2.9

2.9.1

Published and Unpublished Research on Drug
Use in Shetland
Statistical Information on Drug Use in Shetland:
ISD and CADSS

The Drug Misuse Statistics Scotland, annually released by the Information Services
Division Scotland, provides numerical and statistical information on illicit drug use
in every Scottish NHS board and council area, respectively. This information,
however, is of a relatively restricted nature, since the data are predominantly derived
from standardised forms that new clients consulting a drug service anywhere in
Scotland have to complete in order to register. Some of the displayed figures are also
based on data collected by other health services frequented by illicit drug users,
such as GP’s and health centres. In Shetland, these data are principally collected by
the Shetland Community Drugs Team (CDT) and, to minor degrees, by the Lerwick
health centre and a small number of methadone prescribing GP’s outboard the CDT.
Having started as a voluntary service named first Shetland Initiative on Drugs in
the mid-1990s, the service became partly statutory and was then called Shetland
Drug Project in the late 1990s. Around the turn of the millennium, the agency
became primarily statutory and was renamed the Shetland Community Drugs Team
(first abbreviated SCDT, then CDT). In 2007, it fused with the Shetland Alcohol
Support Services into Community Alcohol & Drug Services Shetland (CADSS).

42

2 Theoretical Background and Literature Review

Hence, numbers and percentages by both CDT and CADSS are referred to in this
book. The most commonly used SMR23 form is chiefly concerned with the
person’s drug history, current main drug of choice, route of administration, sharing
of injecting equipment, legal situation, employment and education status, as well
as several personal details. By and large, the ISD statistics correspond to the statistics
provided in the annual reports of CDT. However, in some aspects, figures disagree
and, besides, the latter exceeds the former in terms of the extent of information
provided. In the following, the most relevant figures concerning the year of data
collection of the present study (2004/2005) are given.
According to a paper by the Shetland Alcohol and Drugs Action Team
(SADAT), 17 new clients registered with the Shetland Community Drugs Team in
the year ending March 2005 (Taylor 2006). Numbers from the previous years
varied from 14 in 2000/2001 to 28 in 2003/2004. In 2005/2006, a year after data
collection, the Shetland rate was 223 per 1,000 and there by less than the Scottish
rate 289 (Taylor 2006) but seven times higher than the island of Orkney (ISD
2006). Yet, the differences in services provided locally, and the small numbers
reduce the validity of such comparisons. Whereas the national rate has been rising
continuously between 2000/2001 and 2004/2005, the Shetland numbers within
this time span varied from year to year. This CDT explains as predominantly
associated with the specific offers, and levels of client confidence in local services
(CDT 2005).
Of the 17 new clients in Shetland in 2004/2005, 82% reported using cannabis,
70% heroin, with 59% as main drug of choice, 47% amphetamine sulphate, 35%
cocaine, 29% benzodiazepines, 29% MDMA (ecstasy), and 10% alcohol.
Interestingly, 100% of the new clients reported having first started using illicit
drugs while under the age of 15, compared to the Scottish average of 39% and the
Glasgow average of 38% in the year 2004/2005. Regarding the age of the onset of a
drug problem, Shetland corresponds almost completely to the Glasgow and largely
to the Scottish percentages, with 6% under the age of 15, 41% between 15% and 19,
29% between 20 and 24, 18% between 25 and 29, and five between 30 and 34.
As opposed to Shetland, low Glasgow and Scottish percentages are also between
35 and 39 and 40 or older.
On the one hand, the subject areas covered by the form are limited to basic drug
using and demographic topics. On the other hand, only those drug users are counted
and listed that newly seek professional help, leaving out the dark figure of unknown
cases that are likely to outnumber the presented cases, as heroin constitutes a highly
stigmatised behaviour conducted covertly, especially in a small, remote, and
close-knit community.
Estimating the prevalence of problem drug use in Scotland by Drug Action Team
Area, the information derivable from the Scottish Drug Misuse Data Basis has been
augmented by Hay et al. with the aid of the capture-recapture method (2005). On
this basis, the prevalence rate of problem drug users in Shetland was estimated at
109 in the year 2000/2001 (Hay et al. 2001) and 85 in the year 2004/2005 (Hay et al.
2006, 2009).

2.9

Published and Unpublished Research on Drug Use in Shetland

2.9.2

43

Unpublished Research on Drug Use in Shetland

An unpublished survey concerned with the assessment of the extent of drug use in
Shetland was carried out by the first drugs counsellor in Shetland in 1994 (MacIntosh
1994). The purpose of the survey was a needs assessment for the planned local
drugs project. MacIntosh carried out structured interviews with 100 respondents
aged from 13 to 53, consisting of young ravers, students, and older drug users who
were accessed through the snowball method, a specific technique of social networking (Biernacki and Waldorf 1981). The findings suggest that a broad range of drugs
were readily available and widely used by both teenagers and adults, and that
individuals tended to start younger, continue for longer, and use a greater variety of
drugs than elsewhere. Heroin had been tried by 14% of the participants. Problems
were perceived in the low levels of awareness and knowledge regarding the effects
of the different drugs by both drug users themselves and the general population
in Shetland.
A pilot study on the factors influencing drug use amongst young people in
Shetland, conducted by the Centre for Drug Misuse Research of the University of
Glasgow (Barnard et al. 1997), constitutes a further piece of unpublished research
in this area. The investigation was motivated by the evidence of the increasing
emergence of drugs in rural areas, including the Western Isles (Western Isles Health
Board 1996) and Shetland (Shetland Health Board 1996). The authors suggested an
assimilating trend compared to mainland Britain indicated, for example, by 33%
and 41% of 15- and 16-year-old Shetlanders, respectively, having taken an illicit
drug in their lifetime, which constitute comparable figures to those reported for
Britain overall by Miller and Plant (1996). Still, they warned against drawing any
conclusions regarding this trend on the basis of research carried out in urban areas
on mainland Britain, due to Shetland’s physically, economically, and socially different
environment.
In order to gain a greater understanding of the factors influencing drug use
amongst young people, interviews were carried out with 29 professionals in the
health and social services, education, police and criminal justice departments, and
six drug users attending the Shetland Initiative on Drugs. Additionally, focus group
interviews with students aged 16–20 were conducted. Corresponding with
MacIntosh’s (1994) findings, drugs were found to be widely available and drug use
to be common amongst young people. As had also been a finding of the study outlined above, spells of droughts of certain drugs were reported, frequently leading to
the consumption of substitutes and excessive use in times of unavailability and
abundant supply, respectively. A cannabis drought, for example, could result in the
consumption of diazepines or even heroin. Barnard et al. found recreational drugs,
such as cannabis, amphetamines, and ecstasy, to be commonly accepted amongst
young people. Moreover, they report the development of a more negative attitude
towards alcohol than drugs, in this respect indicating a clear generational difference.
Originally, a longitudinal qualitative study was planned to follow the above-described

44

2 Theoretical Background and Literature Review

pilot study, with the aim of identifying the processes by which drug use becomes
integrated within young people’s social networks. However, this investigation was
not implemented.

2.9.3

Published Research on Heroin Use in Shetland

Two investigations have been carried out and published that are specifically concerned
with heroin use in Shetland (Stallwitz and Shewan 2004; Stallwitz 2007). The first
constitutes a qualitative exploration of the impact of cultural and social factors on
local heroin use (Stallwitz and Shewan 2004). In order to gain an insight into the
specific circumstances of different patterns of heroin use from an unusual, novel
perspective, Shetland was chosen for this purpose. Due to its isolated geographic
location, overall affluence, small size, and close-knit community, it constitutes a
unique research setting in the area of illicit drug use. Qualitative exploratory interviews
with 12 local heroin users were conducted in summer 2000. The analysis revealed
the existence of a small, highly organised, and covert heroin subculture. The heroin
use of the predominantly older users within this group was reported as being
relatively self-controlled and unproblematic in nature, especially in comparison to
heroin use associated with deprived urban areas. The significant importance of drug
using norms and rules in both regulating and regulating patterns of use was identified.
However, there were indicators that this situation had entered a phase of change,
reflected in descriptions of an increasing number of younger, less controlled heroin
users having entered the scene. Hence, further exploratory in-depth research to
examine the developments of this situation, and the heroin subculture in general
including its prevailing use controlling norms and rules, seemed highly recommendable.
By exploring the social and historical context relevant to these findings, the
understanding of the factors determining different styles of heroin use found in local
individuals can be expanded significantly.
Building on the results of this initial exploratory investigation, a second study
concerned with heroin use in Shetland was conducted in 2004 (Stallwitz 2007). Its
aim was the investigation of the nature and the developments of the island heroin
subculture from the perspective of local individuals closely confronted with heroin
use through their respective work. Qualitative, problem-centred interviews with 11
local professionals and practitioners were carried out in spring 2004 (Stallwitz
2007). Interviewees included employees and managers of the drug and youth projects
as well as the homeless hostel team, a local politician concerned with drug policy, a
police officer of the local drug squad, a substitute prescribing GP, a methadone and
syringes dispensing pharmacist, and journalists. Results supported the findings from
the earlier study (Stallwitz and Shewan 2004): For approximately two decades, the
heroin scene in Shetland had existed in the form of a stringently controlled, secretive underground subculture based on a restricted number of older users. The transformation begun in 2000 had apparently further progressed. The numbers of diverse
(including young) users had continued to grow, accompanied by a significant

2.10

The Laboratory Situation of the Shetland Islands

45

expansion in heroin supply. The development of commercial, urban tendencies was
stated, including a decisive rise in patterns of risky, for example, less controlled,
intravenous heroin use. Causal relations between the changes and a series of mutually dependent alterations within the mainstream and the drug culture were specified.
Such factors embraced the preceding rave era, the trend towards heroin use on the
Scottish mainland and the initial spread of a ‘state-dependent’ mentality. On balance, participants assess the changed and further changing heroin subculture as
worrying and suggest innovative and adapted intervention approaches with a focus
on harm reduction and drugs education of both users and the community.

2.9.4

Media Information on Heroin Use in Shetland

The findings of the just described explorative investigation (Stallwitz and Shewan
2004) and the problem-centred study (Stallwitz 2007), which are underlined by
those of the two unpublished examinations, clearly pointed to the necessity of further research in this area. In addition, both the local Shetland and the national media
repeatedly report on the continuously increasing heroin use and the aggravation of
the heroin problem in terms of growing youth involvement and rising rates of risky
use on the Shetland Islands (e.g. BBC News, 23/01/2004; Hooker, The Shetland
Times 2004). On 23 January 2004, the BBC reported the hitherto greatest heroin
seizure in Shetland that was also reported by the island newspapers (e.g. The
Shetland News, 15/04/2004). Together with large quantities of other drugs, such as
ecstasy, amphetamines, diazepam, and cannabis, the overall estimated value of the
captured drugs amounted to £25,000.
Hence, apart from the existing scientific evidence, the case for a comprehensive
in-depth exploration of the nature and circumstances under which heroin use occurs
in Shetland was intensified by the hitherto limited knowledge and recurring media
reports in relation to heroin use on the island.

2.10

The Laboratory Situation of the Shetland Islands

One of the central results of the earlier research on heroin use in Shetland was that
the heroin subculture had entered a phase of transition that seemed to mirror urban
trends and involved the loosening of the hitherto strict internal control of the subculture
regarding heroin use and supply. Still, the outcome of the transitional situation –
whether the urbanisation process would further progress or whether the heroin scene
would maintain or after a while return to its largely controlled and secretive character – could not be foreseen with certainty. Therefore, investigating the development
of the heroin scene after several years bears the potential to decisively extend existing knowledge about the conditions of heroin use in general and in particular at the
location of the Shetland Islands. The small, geographically isolated island community

46

2 Theoretical Background and Literature Review

represents a unique situation that allows identifying relationships between individual
environmental aspects and certain changes and developments of the heroin scene with
significantly greater clarity than is possible than urban settings would. An inner-city
heroin subculture tends to be subject to countless overlaying global, national, and
local influences that can distort analytic sight and hence relativise conclusions of any
kind. Of course, no unambiguous causal associations and interactions can ever be
identified with certainty in social science research. This is explicable in terms of the
nature of social phenomena being comprehensible and categorisable merely to certain
extents and their perception always depending on the subjective perspective of the
respective viewer. However, accepting that our understanding of social reality can
always only be an approximation, the societal and geographic circumstances of the
Shetland Islands provide invaluable ‘microscopic laboratory conditions’ from which
general inferences can be derived and applied globally, thus also to inner-city regions.
The current study has been conducted with this fundamental research intention.

2.11

Research Aim

In order to examine the setting’s effect on heroin use, related behaviour, and the
social structures of the surrounding subculture, a research location is needed that
provides the possibility to differentiate the effects of individual influences. The
location should preferably also diverge from the usual urban sites of heroin research
that are typically associated with social marginalisation. In each of these respects,
the Shetland Islands represent an ideal setting for this research purpose, as they are
characterised by:
• An overall small size of 1.426 km² (Shetland Islands Council 2010)
• A small population of about 21,880 inhabitants (Shetland Islands Council
2009c)
• A location geographically extremely isolated (Scottish Index of Multiple
Deprivation (SIMD), 2009) with ca. 12 h by ferry from both the Scottish mainland
and Norway (Direct Ferries, http://www.directferries.co.uk/routes.htm)
• Comparative wealth with virtually no homelessness, one of the lowest unemployment rates across Britain (Highlands and Islands Enterprise 2003; Shetland
Islands Council 2008) and generally very low levels of socio-economic deprivation
(SIMD, 2009)
• Generally low crime rates (Shetland Islands Council 2008)
The small size of the islands and the population, and the geographic distance
from the nearest mainland facilitate the identification of both individual factors
impacting on social phenomena such as drug use and their effects. The low levels of
socio-economic deprivation and crime, and the high living standard clearly differentiate
Shetland from customary urban research sites.
From a geo-physical perspective, the Shetland Islands are characterised by long,
dark winters, only little darkness over the summers, and cool temperatures throughout

References

47

the year. Additionally, the natural appearance of the mainland Shetland and its
numerous, only partly inhabited surrounding islands with their treeless, often rough,
and bleak appearance are exceptional.
On a superordinate level, the purpose of this investigation is to provide an
unusual, hitherto unique perspective on heroin use. In this way, a vantage point
beyond conventional assumptions can be achieved that allows assumptions beyond
ideology regarding a worldwide highly stigmatised behaviour. Therefore, rather
than viewing and treating heroin use as a universally consistent and conforming
phenomenon independent of its conditions, both the wider and immediate surroundings are considered. These include the extreme geographic isolation, the close-knit
and small island community on one side, and the immediate social environment of
the surrounding subculture within which the behaviour is enacted on the other.
In addition, individual circumstances are also considered.
The examination of the specific conditions of the heroin subculture in Shetland,
including different types of consumers entertaining a wide range of using patterns,
is focussed on contributing to our overall understanding of the dynamics involved in
heroin use. This knowledge bears the potential to inform not only science but also
politics and intervention approaches.

2.11.1

Original Research Question

From the above-outlined basis, the following research question has been elaborated
as the foundation of this investigation:
‘Which roles do location-specific aspects play concerning the formation of the
heroin subculture as well as styles of heroin use on the Shetland Islands?’

References
Abraham, M. D. (1999). Illicit drug use, urbanization, and lifestyle in the Netherlands. Journal of
Drug Issues, 29(3), 565–586.
Abraham, M. D., Cohen, P. D. A., van Til, R. J., & de Winter, M. A. L. (1999). Licit and illicit
drugs in the Netherlands 1997. Amsterdam: CEDRO.
Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. (1982). Treatment and rehabilitation. London:
HMSO.
Agar, M. (1973). Ripping and running: A formal ethnographic study of urban heroin addicts.
New York: Seminar Press.
Akers, R. L. (1985). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach (3rd ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.
Akers, R. L., Krohn, M. D., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Radosevich, M. J. (1979). Social learning and
deviant behavior: A specific test of a general theory. American Sociological Review,
44, 635–655.
Albertín-Carbó, P., Domingo-Salvany, A., & Hartnoll, R. L. (2001). Psychosocial considerations
for the prevention of HIV infection in injecting drug users. Qualitative Health Research, 11,
26–39.

48

2 Theoretical Background and Literature Review

Aldaz, E., Wagner, F., Diaz, D. B., Lopez, A., & Collado, M. E. (2002). Social cohesion, cultural
identity, and drug use in Mexican rural communities. Substance Use & Misuse, 37(5–7),
715–747.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(4th ed.). Washington, DC: APA.
Anderson, S., & Frischer, M. (1997). Drug misuse in Scotland: Findings from the 1993 and 1996
Scottish crime surveys (Crime and criminal justice findings, Vol. 17). Edinburgh: Scottish
Executive Central Research Unit.
Angelucci, F., Ricci, V., Pomponi, M., Conte, G., Mathé, A. A., Tonali, P. A., & Bria, P. (2007).
Chronic heroin and cocaine abuse is associated with decreased serum concentrations of the
nerve growth factor and brain-derived neurotrophic factor. Journal of Psychopharmacology,
21(8), 820–825.
Baier, C. (2004). Substitutionsbehandlung Opiatabhängiger im ländlichen Bereich. Eine qualitative
Interview-Studie mit Patienten und Ärzten. Berlin: Verlag für Wissenschaft und Bildung.
Ball, N., McBride, A. J., Pates, R. M., & Arnold, K. (2001). Needle fixation, the drug user’s
perspective: A qualitative study. Addiction, 96(7), 1049–1058.
Barnard, M. A. (1993). Needle sharing in context: Patterns of sharing among men and women
injectors and HIV risks. Addiction, 88, 805–812.
Barnard, M. A., Parkin, S., & McKeganey, N. (1997). Report of a pilot study on the factors influencing
drug use among young people in Shetland. Glasgow: Centre for Drug Misuse Research.
Barrett, J. S., Shi, J., Xie, H., Huang, X., Fossler, M. J., & Sun, R. (2008). Globalization of
quantitative pharmacology: First international symposium of quantitative pharmacology in
drug development and regulation. The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 48, 787–792.
BBC News. (2004, January 23). Record heroin seizure in Shetland. Retrieved March 22, 2004,
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3424171.stm
Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Free Press.
Beckerleg, S. (2004). How ‘cool’ is heroin injection at the Kenya coast. Drugs: Education,
Prevention and Policy, 11(1), 67–77.
Bennett, J., Stevens, G., Walker, A., Williams, H., Winter, A., & Hamilton-Deeley, V. (2006).
A coordinated response to the high drug death rate in Brighton & Hove. Probation Journal, 53,
265–277.
Bernstein, D. A., Clarke-Stewart, A., Roy, E. J., & Wickens, C. D. (2006). Psychology. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Berridge, V., & Edwards, G. (1987). Opium and the people. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Biernacki, P. (1986). Pathways from heroin addiction: Recovery without treatment. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: problems and techniques of chain referral
sampling. Sociological Methods and Research, 10(2), 141–163.
Blackwell, J. S. (1983). Drifting, controlling and overcoming: opiate users who avoid becoming
chronically dependent. Journal of Drug Issues, 13(2), 219–223.
Blum, R. H. (1967). Drugs, behavior, and crime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science, 374(1), 135–146.
Boekhout van Solinge, T. (2001). Op de pof: Cocaïnegebruik en gezondheid op straat. Amsterdam:
Stichting Mainline.
Boland, P. (2008). British drugs policy: Problematizing the distinction between legal and illegal
drugs and the definition of the ‘drugs problem’. The Journal of Community and Criminal
Justice, 55(2), 171–187.
Brown, R. (2004). Heroin dependence. Wisconsin Medical Journal, 103(4), 20–26.
Brown, E. J., & Smith, F. B. (2006). Place and space. The where and why of drug-use location
among rural African American women. Journal of Family Nursing, 12(2), 185–200.
Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. (2009). Subkultur. Retrieved July 07, 2009, from http://
www1.bpb.de/popup/popup_lemmata.html?guid=M7LG1W
Caiata, M. (1996). Integrierte Drogenabhängigkeit. Eine Pilotstudie über sozial integrierte
GebraucherInnen von Heroin. Abhängigkeiten, 2, 25–30.

References

49

Carter, C. S. (2002). Prenatal care for women who are addicted: Implications for gender-sensitive
practice. Affilia, 17, 299–313.
Cattan, M., Bagnall, A.-M., Akhionbare, K., & Burrell, K. (2008). Injecting equipment schemes
for injecting drug users. Qualitative evidence review. Leeds: Metropolitan University.
CDT. (2005). Annual report Shetland community drugs team 2004/2005. Lerwick: CDT.
Chengzheng, Z., Zhimin, L., Dong, Z., Yanhong, L., Jianhui, L., Yilang, T., Zeyuan, L., & Jiwang,
Z. (2004). Drug abuse in China. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1025, 439–445.
Cheung, Y. W. (2000). Substance abuse and developments in harm reduction. Canadian Medical
Association Journal, 162, 1697.
Cohen, P. D. A. (1989). Cocaine use in Amsterdam in non-deviant subcultures. Amsterdam:
University of Amsterdam.
Cohen, P. (1990). Drugs as a social construct. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Cohen, P., & Sas, A. (1992). Loss of control over cocaine: Rule or exception? Paper presented at
the American Society of Criminology, New Orleans, November, 3–7, 1992.
Cohen, P., & Sas, A. (1993). Ten years of cocaine. A follow-up study of 64 cocaine users in
Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Department of Human Geography, Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Cohen, P., & Sas, A. (1994). Cocaine use in Amsterdam in non deviant subcultures. Addiction
Research, 2(1), 71–94.
Cohen, P., & Sas, A. (1995). Cocaine use in Amsterdam II. Initiation and patterns of use after
1986. Amsterdam: Department of Human Geography, Universiteit van Amsterdam/Collins.
Crawford, G. A., Washington, M. C., & Senay, E. C. (1983). Careers with heroin. The International
Journal of the Addictions, 5, 701–715.
Cressey, P. G. (1932). The taxi-dance hall: A sociological study in commercialized recreation and
city life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dalgarno, P., & Shewan, D. (2005). Unobtrusive drug use. Addiction Research and Theory, 13(3),
259–265.
Daniulaityte, R., Carlson, R., & Siegal, H. A. (2007). “Heavy users”, “controlled users”, and
“quitters”: Understanding patterns of crack use among women in a midwestern city. Substance
Use & Misuse, 42(1), 129–152.
Davies, D. L. (1962). Normal drinking in recovered alcoholics. Quarterly Journal of Studies on
Alcohol, 23, 93–104.
Davies, J. B. (1992). The myth of addiction. Chur: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Davies, J. B. (1997). Drugspeak: The analysis of drug discourse. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic
Publishers.
Davy, J., Giddings, D., & Christo, G. (2003). Reasons for injecting and not injecting: a qualitative study
to inform therapeutic intervention. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 10(1), 95–104.
Day, C., Conroy, E., Lowe, J., Page, J., & Dolan, K. (2006). Patterns of drug use and associated
harms among rural injecting drug users: Comparisons with metropolitan injecting drug users.
Australian Journal of Rural Health, 14(3), 120–125.
de la Fuente, L., Barrio, G., Royuela, L., & Bravo, M. J. (2006). The transition from injecting to
smoking heroin in three Spanish cities. Addiction, 92(12), 1749–1763.
Dean, A. (1990). Culture and community: Drink and soft drugs in the Hebridean youth culture.
The Sociological Review, 38(2).
Dean, A. (1995). Space and substance misuse in rural communities. The International Journal of
Sociology and Social Policy, 15(1–3), 134–155.
Dean, A. (2001). Complexity and substance misuse. Addiction research & Theory, 9(1), 19–41.
Decorte, T. (2000). A qualitative study of cocaine and crack use in Antwerp, Belgium: Some
ethical issues. In J. Fountain (Ed.), Understanding and responding to drug use: The role of
qualitative research (EMCDDA scientific monograph series, Vol. 4, pp. 285–290). Lissabon:
EMCDDA.
Decorte, T. (2001). Quality control by cocaine users: Underdeveloped harm reduction strategies.
European Addiction Research, 7(4), 161–175.
Decorte, T. (2002). Mécanismes d’autorégulation chez les consommateurs de drogues illégales.
Etude ethnographique sur des consommateurs de cocaïne et de crack à Anvers (Belgique). In

50

2 Theoretical Background and Literature Review

C. Faugeron & M. Kokoreff (Eds.), Société avec drogues. Enjeux et limites (pp. 35–62).
Ramonville-Ste-Agne: Edition Erès.
Decorte, T. (2007). The taming of cocaine: Cocaine use in European and American cities. Brüssel:
VUB University Press.
Dehue, T. (2002). A Dutch treat: Randomized controlled experimentation and the case of heroinmaintenance in the Netherlands. History of the Human Sciences, 15, 75–98.
Dickerson, J. W. T., & Stimson, G. (Eds.). (1995). Health in the inner city: Drugs in the city.
London: The Royal Society of Health.
Domingo-Salvany, A., Hartnoll, R. F., & Anto, J. M. (1993). Opiate and cocaine consumers attending
Barcelona emergency rooms: A year survey. Addiction, 88, 1247–1256.
Donnermeyer, J. F. (1992). The use of alcohol, marihuana and hard drug s by rural adolescents:
A review of recent research. In R. Edwards (Ed.), Drug use in rural American communities.
Binghampton: Harrington Park Press.
Donnermeyer, J. F., Scheer, S. D., & Borden, L. M. (2000). The relationship between family
factors and adolescent substance use in rural, suburban, and urban settings. Journal of Child
and Family Studies, 9(1), 105–115.
EMCDDA. (2001). Annual report on the state of the drugs problem in the European Union. Lisbon:
EMCDDA. Retrieved May 29, 2009, from http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/
index37275EN.html
EMCDDA. (2009a). Problem drug use. Lisbon: EMCDDA. Retrieved June 10, 2009, from http://
www.emcdda.europa.eu/themes/key-indicators/pdu
EMCDDA. (2009b). Drug situation. Country overview: United Kingdom. Lisbon: EMCDDA.
Retrieved July 2, 2009, from http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/country-overviews/
uk#headersection
Falck, R. S., Carlson, R. G., Siegal, H. A., & Wang, J. (1996). Attitudes toward needle ‘sharing’
among injection drug users: Combining qualitative and quantitative research methods. Human
Organization, 55(3), 361–369.
Feldman, H. W. (1968). Ideological supports to becoming and remaining a heroin addict. Journal
of Health and Social Behaviour, 9(2), 131–139.
Fischer, B., Turnbull, S., Poland, B., & Haydon, E. (2002). Drug use, risk and urban order: examining
supervised injection sites (SISs) as ‘governmentality’. The International Journal on Drug
Policy, 15(5), 357–365.
Fitzgerald, N., Stewart, D., & Mackie, C. A. (2002). A qualitative study of drug education in
secondary schools in north-east Scotland: Background and methodology. Drugs: Education,
Prevention and Policy, 9(3), 253–265.
Forsyth, A. J. M., & Barnard, M. (1999). Contrasting levels of adolescent drug use between adjacent urban and rural communities. Glasgow: Centre for Drug Misuse Research, University of
Glasgow.
Fountain, J. (Ed.). (2000). Understanding and responding to drug use: The role of qualitative
research (EMCDDA scientific monograph series, Vol. 4). Luxembourg: Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities.
Fountain, J., & Griffiths, P. (1999). Synthesis of qualitative research on drug use in the European
Union: Report on an EMCDDA project. European Addiction Research, 5, 4–20.
Fries, C. J. (2009). Bourdieu’s Reflexive sociology as a theoretical basis for mixed methods
research: An application to complementary and alternative medicine. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 3(4), 326–348.
Frischer, M. (1995). Mapping the nature and extent of drug use in a community: The Glasgow
experience. In J. W. T. Dickerson & G. Stimson (Eds.), Health in the inner city: Drugs in the
city (pp. 66–79). London: The Royal Society of Health.
Frisher, M., Heatlie, H., & Hickman, M. (2007). Validating estimates of problematic drug use in
England. BMC Public Health, 7, 286.
Gardner, B. W., & Peck, D. F. (1996). Drug use in the Scottish highlands. Drugs: Education,
Prevention and Policy, 3(3), 285–294.
Gerra, G., Fantoma, A., & Zaimovic, A. (2006). Naltrexone and buprenorphine combination in the
treatement of opiod dependence. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 20(6), 806–814.

References

51

Giertsen, H. (2005). In-depth and insightful: Review of Philip Lalander’s ‘Hooked on heroin.
Drugs and drifters in a globalized world. In Nordic studies on alcohol and drugs, English
Supplement. Nordisk Alkohol- & Narkotikatidskrift, 22, 181–185.
Giggs, J., Bean, P., Whynes, D., & Wilkinson, C. (1989). Class a drug users: Prevalence and
characteristics in grater Nottingham. British Journal of Addiction, 84, 1473–1480.
GK Quest Akademie. (2009a). Erste Ergebnisse. Retrieved July 11, 2009, from http://www.
kiss-heidelberg.de/kiss-heidelberg/de/6/3/hintergrund/ergebnisse.aspx
GK Quest Akademie. (2009b). Literaturliste (zu kontrolliertem Substanzkonsum). Retrieved July
11, 2009, from http://www.kiss-heidelberg.de/kiss-heidelberg/de/6/2/hintergrund/literatur.aspx
Gleason, P. M., Veum, J. R., & Pergamit, M. R. (1991). Drug and alcohol use at work: A survey of
young workers. Monthly Labor Review, 114(8), 3–7.
Godlaski, T., Schoeneberger, M. L., Leukefeld, C. G., & Hiller, M. L. (2006). Substance abuse
among rural and very rural drug users at treatment entry. The American Journal of Drug and
Alcohol Abuse, 32(1), 87–110.
Goldberg, T. (1999). Demystifying drugs: A psychosocial perspective. London: Macmillan Press.
Golub, A., Johnson, B. D., & Dunlap, E. (2005). Subcultural evolution and illicit drug use.
Addiction Research & Theory, 13(3), 217–229.
Grund, J.-P. C. (1993). Drug use as a social ritual: Functionality, symbolism and determinants of
self-regulation. Rotterdam: IVO Reeks.
Halpin, J. (2008). Rock bottom: Heroin use is on the rise. Anchorage Daily News, June 22, 2008.
Hammersley, R. (1994). Use of controlled drugs in Scotland: Findings from the 1993 Scottish
Crime Survey (Crime and criminal justice findings, Vol. 3). Edinburgh: Scottish Executive
Central Research Unit.
Hammersley, R. (2005). Editorial: Theorizing normal drug use. Addiction Research and Theory,
13(3), 201–203.
Hardenbergh, D., Stillner, V., Kraus, R. F., & Leukefeld, C. G. (1999). Drug use in very rural
Alaska villages. Substance Use & Misuse, 34(4–5), 579–593.
Harding, W. M., & Zinberg, N. E. (1977). The effectiveness of the subculture in developing rituals
and social sanctions for controlled drug use. In B. M. DuToit (Ed.), Drugs, rituals and altered
states of consciousness. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.
Haves, W., & Schneider, W. (1992). Kontrollierter Gebrauch illegaler Drogen. Forschungsstand
und Konsequenzen (unpublished manuscript). Münster: Universität Münster.
Haw, S. (1985). Drug problems in Greater Glasgow. Glasgow: SCODA/Standing Conference on
Drug Abuse.
Haw, S., & Liddel, D. (1988). Drug problems in Edinburgh district. London: SCODA/Standing
Conference on Drug Abuse.
Hay, G., & Gannon, M. (2006). Capture-recapture estimates of the local and national prevalence of
problem drug use in Scotland. The International Journal on Drug Policy, 17, 203–210.
Hay, G., McKeganey, N., & Hutchinson, S. (2001). Estimating the national and local prevalence
of problem drug misuse in Scotland. Executive report. Glasgow: Scottish Centre for
Environmental Health.
Hay, G., Gannon, M., McKeganey, N., Hutchinson, S., & Goldberg, D. (2005). Estimating the
national and local prevalence of problem drug misuse in Scotland. Executive report. Glasgow:
Centre for Drug Misuse Research, University of Glasgow.
Hay, G., Gannon, M., MacDougall, J., Millar, T., Eastwood, C., & McKeganey, N. (2006). Local
and national estimates of the prevalence of opiate use and/or crack cocaine use (2004/2005).
In N. Singleton, R. Murray, & L. Tinsley (Eds.), Measuring different aspects of problem drug
use: Methodological developments. London: Home Office.
Hay, G., Gannon, M., Casey, J., & McKeganey, N. (2009). Estimating the national and local prevalence
of problem drug misuse in Scotland. Executive Report. Glasgow: Centre for Drug Misuse
Research, University of Glasgow.
Heather, N., & Robertson, I. (1982). Controlled drinking. In Behavioural psychotherapy (Vol. 10,
pp. 376–378). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heather, N., & Robertson, I. (1997). Problem drinking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

52

2 Theoretical Background and Literature Review

Henderson, S. (2000). Sticks and smoke: Country cousins and close communities. Druglink, 15(1),
12–15.
Herrmann, U., Nydegger, B., & Estermann, J. (1997). Heroin und Kokain – Möglichkeiten des
sozial integrierten Gebrauchs. In Akzept e.v. (Eds.), DrogenVisionen. Dokumentationsband
zum 4. akzept Bundeskongress, 12.–15. September 1996 in Saarbrücken, 12. Berlin: Verlag für
Wissenschaft und Bildung.
Highlands and Islands Enterprise. (2003). Shetland Islands economic update. Retrieved February
14, 2007, from http://www.shetland.gov.uk/datashare/upload/documents/HIE-shetland-areaeconomic-profile-2003.pdf
Hooker, K. (2004). Heroin on increase, said drug workers and police. The Shetland Times, Lerwick,
Scotland, February 27, 2004, p. 13.
Hurrelmann, K., & Bründel, H. (1997). Drogengebrauch, Drogenmissbrauch. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Hyman, S. E., & Malenka, R. C. (2001). Addiction and the brain: The neurobiology of compulsion
and its persistence. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(10), 695–703.
ISD Scotland. (1999–2009). Drug misuse statistics Scotland. Edinburgh: ISD.
Izugbara, C. O. (2005). The socio-cultural context of Adolescents’ notions of sex and sexuality in
rural south-eastern Nigeria. Sexualities, 8, 600–617.
Jobes, P. C., Donnermeyer, J. F., & Barclay, E. M. (2002). Drug-related offenses and the structure
of communities in rural Australia. Substance Use & Misuse, 37(5–7), 631–661.
Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (1993). National survey results on drug use
from the monitoring the future study, 1975–1992. Washington, DC: US Government Printing
Office.
Jones, I. G., Cooke, C., & MacDonald, S. (1997). Alcohol, tobacco and other drug use amongst
secondary school children in Fife, Scotland. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 4(3),
243–253.
Judd, A., Rhodes, T., & Davis, M. (2004). Hepatitis C and its risk management among drug injectors
in London: Renewing harm reduction in the context of uncertainty. Addiction, 99(5), 621–633.
Jungaberle, H. (2007). Qualitative Drogen- und Suchtforschung – am Beispiel eines kulturpsychologischen Forschungsprojekts. In B. Dollinger & H. Schmidt-Semisch (Eds.),
Sozialwissenschaftliche Suchtforschung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Kelley, M. S., & Chitwood, D. D. (2004). Effects of drug treatment for heroin sniffers: A protective
factor against moving to injection? Social Science & Medicine, 58(10), 2083–2092.
Kemmesies, U. E. (2004). Zwischen Rausch und Realität: Drogenkonsum im bürgerlichen Milieu.
Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Killias, M., Aebi, M. F., & Ribeaud, D. (2000). Learning through controlled experiments:
Community service and heroin prescription in Switzerland. Crime & Delinquency, 46,
233–251.
Kirby, K. N., Petry, N. M., & Bickel, W. K. (1999). Heroin addicts have higher discount rates for
delayed rewards than non-drug-using controls. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 128(1),
78–87.
Klee, H., & Morris, J. (1994). Crime and drug misuse: Economic and psychological aspects of the
criminal activities of heroin and amphetamine injectors. Addiction Research & Theory, 1(4),
377–386.
Klingemann, H. (2006). Arbeitsbericht zur ExpertInnentagung zum Thema “Kontrolliertes
Trinken”. 16.2.2006 in der Forel Klinik.
Klingemann, H., & Carter Sobell, L. (2006). Selbstheilung von der Sucht. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag
für Sozialwissenschaften.
Klingemann, H., Room, R., Rosenberg, H., Schatzmann, S., Sobell, L., & Sobell, M. (2004).
Kontrolliertes Trinken als Behandlungsziel – Bestandesaufnahme des aktuellen Wissens.
Literatur und Expertenbericht zum Modul A. Bern: Bundesamt für Gesundheit (BAG) und
Eidgenössische Kommission für Alkoholfragen (EKA).
Knight, K. R., Rosenbaum, M., Kelley, M. S., Irwin, J., Washburn, A., & Wenger, L. (1996).
Defunding the poor: The impact of lost access to subsidized methadone maintenance treatment
on women injection drug users. Journal of Drug Issues, 26(4), 923–942.

References

53

Koester, S., Anderson, K., & Hoffer, L. (1999). Active heroin injectors’ perceptions and use of
methadone maintenance treatment: Cynical performance or self-prescribed risk reduction?
Substance Use & Misuse, 34, 2135–2153.
Kolte, B., & Schmidt-Semisch, H. (2005). Kontrollierter Drogenkonsum: Ein prekäres Paradigma?
In A. Legnaro & A. Schmieder (Eds.), Kontrollierter Drogenkonsum – Drogenkonsum als
Lebenskontrolle (Jahrbuch Suchtforschung, Vol. 5). Münster/Hamburg/London: LIT Verlag.
Korf, D. J., & Nabben, T. (1999). Cocaine and crack in Amsterdam: Diverging subcultures. Journal
of Drug Issues, 29(3), 627–651.
Körkel, J. (2004). Abstinenz und kontrolliertes Trinken: Sich ergänzende Ziele in der Suchtbehandlung. In J. Rink (Ed.), Auf der Suche nach der Kontrolle. Von der Abstinenzabhängigkeit zur
Kontrollabhängigkeit. Beiträge zum Wandel der Zieldiskussion in der Suchtkrankenhilfe
(pp. 66–93). Geesthacht: Neuland.
Körkel, J. (2005). Kontrollierter Alkoholkonsum – Strategien der Risikominimierung. In J.-H.
Heudtlass & H. Stöver (Eds.), Risiko mindern beim Drogengebrauch (pp. 164–188). Frankfurt
a.M.: Gesundheitsförderung – Verbrauchertips – Beratungswissen – Praxishilfen.
Körkel, & GK Quest. (2005). Internetshop. Retrieved August 12, 2009, from http://www.gk-quest.
de/shop/de/0/0/materialien/suche.aspx?q=k%C3%B6rkel%20&%20gk%20quest%202005
Körkel, J., Langguth, W., Schellberg, B., & Neu, B. (2002). Kontrolliertes Trinken als Ziel und als
Weg. Zwei Fallvignetten. Suchttherapie, 3, 106–111.
Korte, S. (2007). Rauschkontruktion. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Wiesbaden.
Kraus, L., & Augustin, R. (2001). Repräsentativerhebung zum Gebrauch psychoaktiver Substanzen
bei Erwachsenen in Deutschland 2000. Sucht, 47 (Sonderheft).
Kraus, L., Pabst, A., & Müller, S. (2008). Epidemiologie substanzbezogener Störungen: Eine
alters- und geschlechtsspezifische Betrachtung. Sucht Aktuell, 15(2), 8–13.
Kuntz, H. (2000). Der rote Faden in der Sucht. Neue Ansätze in Theorie und Praxis. Weinheim:
Beltz.
Kuntz-Melcavage, K. L., Brucklacher, R. M., Grigson, P. S., Freeman, W. M., & Vrana, K. E.
(2009). Gene expression changes following extinction testing in a heroin behavioral incubation
model. BMC Neuroscience, 7(10), 95.
Laging, M. (2004). Riskanter Suchtmittelkonsum bei Jugendlichen. Entstehungszusammenhänge,
Möglichkeiten der Identifizierung und Prävention. Hamburg: Dr. Kovač.
Lalander, P. (2003). Hooked on heroin: Drugs and drifters in a globalized world. Oxford/
New York: Berg/Oxford International.
Lamnek, S. (1994). Neue Theorien abweichenden Verhaltens. München: UTB.
Legnaro, A., & Schmieder, A. (Eds.). (2006). Kontrollierter Drogenkonsum – Drogenkonsum als
Lebenskontrolle. Berlin: LIT Verlag.
Lempens, A., van de Mheen, D., & Barendregt, C. (2003). Homeless drug users in Rotterdam, the
Netherlands: Profile, way of life, and the need for assistance. Substance Use & Misuse,
38(3–6), 339–375.
Leukefeld, C. J., Clayton, R. R., & Myers, J. A. (1992). Rural drug and alcohol treatment. In R.
Edwards (Ed.), Drug use in rural American communities. Binghampton: Harrington Park
Press.
Leukefeld, C. G., Logan, T. K., Clayton, R. R., Martin, C., Zimmerman, R., Cattarello, A., Milich,
R., & Lynam, D. (1998). Adolescent drug use delinquency, and other behaviors. In T. P.
Gullotta, G. R. Adams, & R. Montemayor (Eds.), Delinquent violent youth – Theories and
interventions. London: Sage.
Leukefeld, C. G., Narevic, E., Hiller, M. L., Staton, M., Logan, T. K., Gillespie, W., Webster, J. M.,
Garrity, T. F., & Purvis, R. (2002). Alcohol and drug use among rural and urban incarcerated
substance abusers. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,
46(6), 715–728.
Levine, H. G. (2002). The secret of worldwide drug prohibition. The varieties and uses of drug
prohibition. The Independent Review, 7(2), 165–180.
Levine, H. G., & Reinarman, C. (1993). From prohibition to regulation: Lessons from American
alcohol policy for drug policy. In Bayer Ronald & Oppenheimer Gerald (Eds.), Confronting
drug policy (pp. 160–193). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

54

2 Theoretical Background and Literature Review

Levran, O., Londono, D., O’Hara, K., Nielsen, D. A., Peles, E., Rotrosen, J., Casadonte, P.,
Linzy, S., Randesi, M., Ott, J., Adelson, M., & Kreek, M. J. (2008). Genetic susceptibility to
heroin addiction: A candidate gene association study. Genes, Brain, and Behavior, 7(7),
720–729.
Logan, T. K., Leukefeld, C. G., Farabee, D., McDermeit, M., Dennis, M. L., Wechsberg, W. M.,
Inciardi, J. A., Surratt, H. L., Compton, W. M., Cottler, L. B., Klein, H., Hoffman, J. A., &
Desmond, D. (2001). Real and perceived HIV risk by population density: An exploratory
examination. Journal of Drug Issues, 31(4), 889–904.
Loxley, W., & Carruthers, S. (2002). Attitudes of novice heroin injectors towards non-injecting
routes of administration to prevent the transmission of blood-borne viruses. The International
Journal on Drug Policy, 13(1), 69–74.
Lucchini, R. (1985). Young drug addicts and the drug scene. Bulletin on Narcotics, 37(2–3), 135–148.
MacIntosh, T. W. (1994). Recreational and problem drug user survey, an assessment of the extent,
nature and context of drug use in Shetland – Recommendations to the Shetland Alcohol Group.
Lerwick: Shetland Alcohol Group.
MAINLINE. (1996). Control it – Naar meer zelfcontrole bij drugsgebruikers. Amsterdam:
Selbstverlag.
Malinowski, B. (1913). The family among the Australian Aborigines: A sociological study. London:
University of London Press.
Mariak, V. (1991). Strategien der Ausgrenzung: Der Kampfbegriff “kriminelle Drogensubkultur”
und das Beispiel Hamburger Heroinkonsumenten. Frankfurt a. M: Lang.
McDonald, M. (Ed.). (1994). Gender, drink and drugs. Oxford: Berg.
McIntosh, J., & McKeganey, N. (2000). Addicts’ Narratives of recovery from drug use: Constructing
a non-addict identity. Social Science & Medicine, 50(10), 1501–1510.
McIntosh, J., & McKeganey, N. P. (2002). Beating the dragon: The recovery from dependent drug
use. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
McKeganey, N. P., & Barnard, M. A. (1992). Selling sex: Female street prostitution and HIV risk
behaviour in Glasgow. AIDS Care, 4(4), 395–408.
McKeganey, N. P., Friedman, S., & Mesquita, F. (1997). The social context of injectors risk behaviour.
In G. Stimson et al. (Eds.), Drug injecting and HIV infection: Global dimensions and local
responses. London: World Health Organisation.
McMurran, M. (1994). The psychology of addiction. London: Taylor & Francis.
McSweeney, T., & Turnbull, P. J. (2007). Exploring user perceptions of occasional and controlled
heroin use: A follow-up study. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Miller, P., & Plant, M. (1996). Drinking, smoking and illicit drug use among 15 and 16 years olds
in the United Kingdom. British Medical Journal, 313, 394–397.
Miller, W., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing. Preparing people for change.
New York: Guilford Press.
Mojtahedzadeh, V., Razani, N., Malekinejad, M., Vazirian, M., Shoaee, S., Saberi Zafarghandi, M.,
Hernandez, A., & Mandel, J. (2008). Injection drug use in rural Iran: Integrating HIV prevention
into Iran’s rural primary health care system. AIDS & Behavior, 12(Sup 1), 7–12.
Moore, K., & Miles, S. (2004). Young people, dance and the sub-cultural consumption of drugs.
Addiction Research & Theory, 12(6), 507–523.
Murphy, S. B., Reinarman, C., & Waldorf, D. (1989). An 11-year follow-up of a network of cocaine
users. British Journal of Addiction, 84, 427–436.
Nadelmann, E. (1990). Global prohibition regimes: The evolution of norms in international society.
International Organization, 44(4), 479–526.
Neaigus, A., & Sifaneck, S. J. (2001). The ethnographic accessing, sampling and screening of
hidden populations: Heroin sniffers in New York City. Addiction Research & Theory, 9(6),
519–543.
Nguyen, V. T., & Scannapieco, M. (2008). Drug abuse in Vietnam: a critical review of the literature
and implications for future research. Addiction., 103(4), 535–543.
NIDA. (2005). Heroin: Abuse and addiction (Research Report no. 5). Maryland: NIH Publications.
NIDA. (2009). National institute on drug abuse: The science of drug abuse & addiction. Frequently
asked questions. Retrieved February 12, 2009, from http://www.nida.nih.gov/tools/faq.html

References

55

Niebaum, I. (2001). Leitlinien in der schulischen Suchtprävention. Baltmannsweiler: SchneiderVerlag Hohengehren.
Noller, P., & Reinicke, H. (1987). Heroinszene: Selbst- und Fremddefinitionen einer Subkultur.
Frankfurt (M.)/New York: Campus Verlag.
Nurco, D. N., Schaffer, J. W., & Cisin, I. H. (1984). An ecological analysis of the interrelationships
among drug abuse and other indices of social pathology. International Journal of the Addictions,
19, 441–451.
Nutt, D. J. (2003). Death and dependence: Current controversies over the selective serotonin
reuptake inhibitors. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 17(4), 355–364.
Nutt, D., King, L. A., Saulsbury, W., & Blakemore, C. (2007). Development of a rational scale to
assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse. Lancet, 369(9566), 1047–1053.
Oser, C. B., Mooney, J. L., Staton-Tindall, M., & Leukefeld, C. G. (2009). The drugs-violence
nexus among rural felony probationers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(8), 1285–1303.
Parker, H., Bakx, K., & Newcombe, R. (1988). Living with heroin: The impact of a drugs epidemic
on an English community. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Pearson, G. (2001). Normal drug use: Ethnographic fieldwork among an adult network of
recreational drug users in inner London. Substance Use & Misuse, 36(1&2), 167–200.
Peele, S. (1985). The meaning of addiction. Lexington: Heath.
Peters, V., Oetting, E. R., & Edwards, R. W. (1992). Drug use among rural youth. Drugs & Society,
7(12), 9–30.
Peterson, G. M., Northeast, S., Jackson, S. L., & Fitzmaurice, K. D. (2007). Harm minimization
strategies: Opinions of health professionals in rural and remote Australia. Journal of Clinical
Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 32(5), 497–504.
Pfister, G., & Klein, G. (1991). Subkultur. In G. Reinhold (Ed.), Soziologie-Lexikon (pp. 598–601).
München/Wien: Oldenbourg.
Plant, M., & Miller, P. (1999). Use and perceived ease of obtaining illicit drugs among teenagers
in urban, suburban and rural schools: A UK study. Journal of Substance Use, 4(1), 24–28.
Polli, E., Ketterer, H., & Weber, E. (1989). Kursprogramm kontrolliertes Trinken. Suchtprobleme
und Sozialarbeit, 3, 125–133.
Powell, D. H. (1973). A pilot study of occasional heroin users. Archives of General Psychiatry,
28(4), 586–594.
Preble, E., & Casey, J. J. (1969). Taking care of business. International Journal of the Addictions,
4(1), 1–24.
Prins, E. H. (1995). Maturing out. An empirical study of personal histories and processes in harddrug addiction. Doctoral dissertation, Erasmus University Rotterdam.
QED. (2005). Qualitative European drugs research network homepage. Retrieved March 3, 2005,
from http://www.qed.org.uk/
Quensel, S. (1973). Wie wird man kriminell? Verlaufsmodell einer fehlgeschlagenen Interaktion
zwischen Delinquenten und Sanktionsinstanz. In H. Giesecke (Ed.), Offensive Sozialpädagogik.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
Razali, K., Amin, J., Dore, G. J., & Law, M. G. [on behalf of the HCV Projections Working
Group]. (2009). Modelling and calibration of the hepatitis C epidemic in Australia. Statistical
Methods in Medical Research, 18(3), 253–270.
Reinarmann, C., & Levine, H. G. (1997). Crack in context: America’s latest demon drug. In C.
Reinarmann & H. G. Levine (Eds.), Crack in America: Demon drugs and social justice
(pp. 1–17). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Renton, A., Rhodes, T., Mikhailova, L., Sarang, A., Lowndes, C. M., Rylkov, A., & Khutorskoy, M.
(2003). Situational factors influencing drug injecting, risk reduction and syringe exchange in
Togliatti city, Russian federation: A qualitative study of micro risk environment. Social Science
& Medicine, 57(1), 39–54.
Rhodes, T. J. (1995). Theorising and researching ‘risk’: Notes on the social relations of risk in
heroin users’ lifestyles. In P. Aggleton, P. Davies, & G. Hert (Eds.), AIDS: Safety, sexuality and
risk. London: Taylor and Francis.
Rhodes, T., Watts, L., Davies, S., Martin, A., Smith, J., Clark, D., Craine, N., & Lyons, M.
(2007). Risk, shame and the public injector: A qualitative study of drug injecting in South

56

2 Theoretical Background and Literature Review

Wales. Social Science & Medicine, 65(3), 572–585. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.
2007.03.033
Robins, L. N., Helzer, J. E., Heselbrock, M., & Wish, E. (1980). Vietnam veterans three years after
Vietnam: How our study changed our view of heroin. In L. Brill & C. Winick (Eds.), The yearbook of substance use and abuse (pp. 213–230). New York: Human Sciences Press.
Rosenburg, H., & Melville, J. (2005). Controlled drinking and controlled drug use as outcome
goals in British treatment services. Addiction Research and Theory, 13(1), 85–92.
Ross, A. J., Heim, D., Bakshi, N., Davies, J. B., Flatley, K. J., & Hunter, S. C. (2004). Drug issues
affecting Chinese, Indian and Pakistani people living in Greater Glasgow. Drugs: Education,
Prevention and Policy, 11(1), 49–65.
Rothman, R. B., Long, J. B., Bykov, V., Xu, H., Jacobson, A. E., Rice, K. C., & Holaday, J. W.
(1991). Upregulation of the opioid receptor complex by the chronic administration of
morphine: A biochemical marker related to the development of tolerance and dependence.
Peptides, 12, 151–160.
Rumgay, J. (2003). Drug treatment and offender rehabilitation: Reflections on evidence, effectiveness
and exclusion. Probation Journal, 50, 41–51.
Samson, L., Singh, R., & Barua, P. (2001). Qualitative research as a means of intervention development.
Addiction Research & Theory, 9(6), 587–599.
Sánchez, J., Chitwood, D. D., & Koo, D. J. (2006). Risk factors associated with the transition from
heroin sniffing to heroin injection: A street addict role perspective. Journal of Urban Health,
83(5), 896–910.
Schippers, G. M., & Cramer, E. (2002). Kontrollierter Gebrauch von Heroin und Kokain.
Suchttherapie, 3, 71–80.
Schmidt-Semisch, H., & Nolte, F. (2000). Drogen. Hamburg: Rotbuch-Verlag.
Schneider, W. (1984). Biographie und Lebenswelten von Langzeitcannabiskonsumenten. Eine
ereignisbezogene Deutungsanalyse im Vergleich. Berlin: Express Edition.
Schütz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world. Chicago: Northwestern University
Press (first published 1932).
Scottish Executive. (2004). Urban rural classification 2003–2004. Environment and Rural Affairs
Department. [electronic document] http://www.shetland.gov.uk/datashare/upload/documents/
seurc.pdf
Scottish Executive. (2006). Urban rural classification 2005–2006. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.
Scottish Government. (2009). Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD). 2009 General report.
Edinburgh: Scottish Government. [electronic document] http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/
Doc/289599/0088642.pdf
Shakib, S., Nichter, M., Quintero, G., Nichter, M., & Mock, J. (2004). Qualitative research:
Contributions to the study of drug use, drug abuse, and drug use(r)-related interventions.
Substance Use & Misuse, 39(10–12), 1907–1969.
Shalev, U., Grimm, J. W., & Shaham, Y. (2002). Neurobiology of relapse to heroin and cocaine
seeking: A review. Pharmacological Reviews, 54(1), 1–42.
Sharma, H. K. (1996). Socio-cultural perspective of substance use in India. Substance use and
misuse, 31, 1689–1714.
Shaw, V. N. (2006). China under reform: Social problems in rural areas. China Report, 42, 341–368.
Shetland Health Board. (1996). Cited in: Barnard, M. Parkin, S., & McKeganey, N. (1997). Report
of a pilot study on the factors influencing drug use among young people in Shetland. Unpublished
report. Glasgow: Centre for Drug Misuse Research.
Shetland Islands Council. (2008). Shetland in Statistics. Lerwick: Shetland Islands Council,
Economic Development Unit.
Shetland Islands Council. (2009a). Culture. Retrieved July 12, 2009, from http://www.shetland.
org/culture
Shetland Islands Council. (2009b). Ports and harbours in Shetland. Retrieved September 20, 2009,
from http://www.shetland.gov.uk/ports/
Shetland Islands Council. (2009c). Central Island community profile. Retrieved September 15,
2009, from http://www.shetland.gov.uk/communityplanning/documents/Central.1doc.pdf

References

57

Shetland Islands Council. (2010). Information about Shetland. Retrieved June 20, 2011, from
http://www.shetland.gov.uk/jobs/aboutshetland.asp
Shewan, D., & Dalgarno, P. (2005). Evidence for controlled heroin use? Low levels of negative
health and social outcomes among non-treatment heroin users in Glasgow (Scotland). British
Journal of Health Psychology, 10(1), 33–48.
Simon, M. (2009). Halting Alaska’s New Heroin Epidemic, KTVA Alaska Broadcasting Company
Inc., Anchorage, June 27, 2009. http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=93589
Spence, R. T., Maxwell, J. C., & Bohman, T. M. (2004). Differences in characteristics of heroin
inhalers and heroin injectors at admission to treatment: A preliminary study using a large
database of client records. Substance Use & Misuse, 39(6), 993–1012.
Spunt, B. (2003). The current New York City heroin scene. Substance Use and Misuse, 38(10),
1539–1549.
Stallwitz, A. (2007). Heroin use in Shetland from the perspective of different local professionals.
Therapeutic Communities, 28(3), 256–272.
Stallwitz, A., & Shewan, D. (2004). A qualitative exploration of the impact of cultural and social
factors on heroin use in Shetland (Scotland). Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 36(3).
Stephens, R. C., & Lo, C. C. (2002). Arrestees’ perceived needs for substance-specific treatment:
Exploring urban-rural differences. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 28(4),
623–642.
Stierle, C. (2005). Entscheidung zu Crack? Eine handlungstheoretische Erklärung des
Crackkonsums. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač.
Strang, J., Boys, A., Dobson, J., & Marsden, J. (2002). ‘Rich man’s speed’: A qualitative study of
young cocaine users. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 9(2), 195–210.
Strathdee, S. A., Sherman, S. G., Smith, L., & Laney, G. (2002). Social influences on the transition
to injection drug use among young heroin sniffers: A qualitative analysis. Internatinal Journal
of Drug Policy, 13(2), 113–120.
Strieder, C. (2001). Kontrollierter Gebrauch illegalisierter Drogen: Funktion und Bedeutung des
Gebrauchs illegalisierter Drogen im gesellschaftlichen Kontext. Berlin: Verlag für Wissenschaft
und Bildung.
Surratt, H. L., Inciardi, J. A., Kurtz, S. P., & Kiley, M. C. (2004). Sex work and drug use in a
subculture of violence. Crime & Delinquency, 50(1), 43–59.
Szasz, T. (1975). Ceremonial chemistry. New York: Anchor.
Szene. (2009). In Babylon Wörterbuch. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from http://woerterbuch.babylon.
com/Szene%20%28Soziologie%29, July 4, 2009
Tannenbaum, F. (1938). Crime and the community. New York/London: Columbia University Press.
Taylor, S. (2006). The misuse of drugs – A profile of Shetland. Lerwick: NHS Shetland [electronic
document] http://www.shetland.gov.uk/datashare/upload/documents/BoardpaperDrugstatsJan06.
pdf
The Shetland News. (2004 April 15). Four years for Lerwick heroin dealer. Retrieved October 21,
2005, from http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/archives
Thrasher, F. (1927). The gang. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Trujillo, M. L. (2006). A northern New Mexican ‘Fix’. Shooting up and coming down in the
greater española valley, New Mexico. Cultural Dynamics, 18(1), 89–112.
Tunnell, K. D. (2006). Socially disorganized rural communities. Crime Media Culture, 2(3),
332–337.
Türk, D., & Bühringer, G. (1999). Psychische und Soziale Ursachen der Sucht. Der Internist,
40, 583–589.
Verthein, U., Bonorden-Kleij, K., Degkwitz, P., Dilg, C., Köhler, W. K., Passie, T., Soyka, M.,
Tanger, S., Vogel, M., & Haasen, C. (2008). Long-term effects of heroin-assisted treatment in
Germany. Addiction, 103, 960–966.
Visit Shetland. (2009). Major events. Retrieved August 13, 2009, from http://www.visitshetland.
com/major-events/up-helly-aa
von Aarburg, H.-P. (1998). Heroindampfscheibenwirbel. Eine kulturanthropologische Studie des
Folienrauchens in Zürich zwischen 1990 und 1995. Berlin: Verlag für Wissenschaft und Bildung.

58

2 Theoretical Background and Literature Review

Waitzfelder, B., Engel, C., & Gilbert, F. (1998). Substance abuse in Hawaii: Perspectives of key
local human service organizations. Substance Abuse, 19(1), 7–22.
Waldorf, D., & Biernacki, P. (1981). The natural recovery from opiate addiction: some preliminary
findings. Journal of Drug Issues, 11(1), 61–76.
Warburton, H., Turnbull, P. J., & Hough, M. (2005). Occasional and controlled heroin use: Not a
problem? London: King’s College.
Ward, J., Power, R., Jones, S., & Kearns, G. (1996). An ethnography of risk management amongst
illicit drug injectors and its implications for the development of community-based interventions.
Sociology of Health & Illness, 18(1), 86–106.
Wargo, M. J., Solomon, J., Oppenheim, J. Sharma, S., & Rom, M. (1990). Rural drug abuse:
Prevalence, relation to crime, and programs. Gaithersburg: GAO Report to Congressional
Requestors.
Weber, G., & Schneider, W. (1992). Herauswachsen aus der Sucht illegaler Drogen. Münster:
Institut für Soziologie/Sozialpädagogik.
Weber, G., Schneider, W., Engemann, S., Gerlach, R., & Haves, W. (1997). Herauswachsen aus
der Sucht illegaler Drogen. Münster: INDRO.
Webster, P. (2004). Introduction to: The effectiveness of the subculture in developing rituals and
social sanctions for controlled drug use. W. Harding & N. E. Zinberg, from: Drugs, rituals and
altered states of consciousness, B. M. du Toit, (Ed.). (1977), A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam. In The
psychedelic library, March 23, 2004. http://www.psychedelic-library.org/zinsubcl.htm
Weisheit, R. A., & Wells, L. E. (1996). Rural crime and justice: Implications for theory and
research. Crime & Delinquency, 42, 379–397.
Western Isles Health Board. (1996). Cited in: Barnard, M. Parkin, S., & McKeganey, N. (1997).
Report of a pilot study on the factors influencing drug use among young people in Shetland.
Unpublished report. Glasgow: Centre for Drug Misuse Research.
Wills, J. (1991). A place in the sun: Shetland and oil. Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing
Company.
Winick, C. (1962). Maturing out of narcotic addiction. UN Bulletin on Narcotics, 14(1), 1–7.
World Health Organisation. (1992). ICD-10 classifications of mental and behavioural disorder:
clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organisation.
Wright, N. M. J., Tompkins, C. N. E., & Sheard, L. (2007). Is peer injecting a form of intimate
partner abuse? A qualitative study of the experiences of women drug users. Health & Social
Care in the Community, 15(5), 417–425. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/
hscc/2007/00000015/00000005/art00003-aff_2
Yinger, M. (1960). Contraculture and subculture. American Sociological Review, 25, 625–635.
Zheng, X., Tian, C., Choi, K.-H., Zhang, J., Cheng, H., Yang, X., Li, D., Lin, J., Qu, S., Sun, X.,
Hall, T., Mandel, J., & Hearst, N. (1994). Injecting drug use and HIV infection in southwest
China. AIDS, 8(8), 1141–1148.
Zinberg, N. E. (1984). Drug, set, and setting. The basis for controlled intoxicant use. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Zinberg, N. E., & Jacobson, R. C. (1975). The social basis of drug abuse prevention. In Developments
in the field of drug abuse. Proceedings of the National Drug Abuse Conference, 1974 (pp. 3–13).
Cambridge: Schenkman.
Zinberg, N. E., Jacobson, R. C., & Harding, W. M. (1975). Social sanctions and rituals as a basis
for drug abuse prevention. American Journal Drug of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 2(2),
165–182.
Zinberg, N. E., Harding, W. M., & Winkeller, M. (1981). A study of social regulatory mechanisms
in controlled illicit drug users. In H. Shaffer & M. E. Burglass (Eds.), Classic contributions to
the addictions (pp. 277–300). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Chapter 3

Methodology

3.1

Methodological Approach: Qualitative,
Semi-structured In-Depth Interviews

In exploring this question with first-hand evidence, Shetlanders personally consuming
heroin constituted the optimal study population. Furthermore, to cover variation in
using styles both across consumers and biographies, different user groups needed to
be accessed. The greatest contrasts could be achieved by including both people
receiving treatment for their dependent drug use and related problems, and recreational, occasional heroin consumers. A wide range of ages and an as balanced
representation of genders as possible would help to form a comprehensive view.
Considering the nature of the research question, only a qualitative research design
could be applied. Simply speaking, research questions beginning with why or
what/which tend to indicate the requirement of a qualitative approach. Quantitative
questions usually ask how and are designed to compare different groups or the
relationship between variables, for example, in the form of cause and effect
(e.g. University of Sheffield 2009), or to identify and determine universally applicable patterns. The aim of the present study project is the opposite of this in that the
peculiarities and particularities of location- and person-specific features, rather
than universal patterns in the context of heroin use were of interest. Solely, an
ideographic (individual and uniqueness-oriented), qualitative approach in contrast
to a nomothetic (universally oriented), quantitative design allows to appropriately
pursue the investigative goal and explore the research question.
Additionally, the intention to interview heroin users in Shetland, who are engaging
in a highly stigmatised behaviour in very small geographically isolated island
community, meant that the number of study participants would be limited to an
extent that would strongly reduce the validity and expressiveness of statistical
conclusions.

A. Stallwitz, The Role of Community-Mindedness in the Self-Regulation of Drug
Cultures: A Case Study from the Shetland Islands, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3861-4_3,
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

59

60

3

Methodology

Moreover, apart from the two qualitative studies outlined in the introduction and
conducted in 2000 and 2004, respectively, no published research on drug use in
Shetland exists so far (Stallwitz and Shewan 2004; Stallwitz 2007). Consequently,
the existing scientific knowledge on this phenomenon still remains very restricted
and fragmentary, which speaks for further qualitative exploration.
On the basis of qualitative drugs research published in Great Britain, Rhodes and
Cusick have identified six conditions requiring qualitative research approaches,
which they regard as EU-wide applicable (1997). These have been summarised in
an EMCDDA (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction) monograph edited by Greenwood and Robertson (2000). They argue that qualitative drugs
research both plays a necessary role and represents a prerequisite for understanding
and responding to drug use. These conditions include (1) reaching and researching hidden populations, (2) understanding the experience and meaning of drug
use, (3) understanding the social context of drug use, (4) informing the design of
quantitative research, (5) complementing and questioning the results of quantitative
research, and (6) developing effective intervention and policy responses. In summary,
qualitative research is an inevitable prerequisite for properly understanding and
appropriately responding to drug use.
All criteria for the employment of qualitative methods identified by Rhodes and
Cusick are either directly or indirectly met, which further supports the case for a
qualitative design:
(1) As indicated above, heroin users not accessible through official agencies (or
prison) constitute a ‘hidden population’.
(2) and (3) These points are self-evident regarding the research question.
(4) and (5) As explained above, the superordinate goal of this research is to provide
a fresh perspective on heroin consumption that is as little determined by ideology
and traditionally inherited prejudice as feasible. Hence, traditional, quantitative
heroin research is challenged.
(6) This point is met more indirectly than directly, as I aim to contribute to scientific
understanding and knowledge concerning heroin use and its surrounding conditions. This initially general knowledge is applicable to specific situations, such as
informing policies and intervention concepts.
Due to the complex and multifaceted and simultaneously very specific subject
matter, the best research instrument to be employed is the qualitative, semistructured in-depth interview.
On the basis of the argument above, I originally aimed at conducting interviews
with 20 Shetland heroin users, of whom half were clients of the local drugs project
and the other half users not receiving professional treatment for their opiate use and
including recreational, occasional heroin consumers. In a qualitative study based on
comprehensive in-depth interviews, 20 participants is already a large sample able to
provide high quality data in much greater abundance than needed. The inclusion of
more than 20 interviewees in an investigation of this type is non-essential and can
even become seriously counterproductive. In order to conduct the data analysis
according to grounded theory professionally and thoroughly, the researcher – who

3.2 The Significance of Qualitative Methods in Drugs Research

61

is looking for recurrent, common themes within and across interviews – needs to
maintain a constant overview of the interview contents. This endeavour becomes
increasingly challenging the more interviews are included. With a larger number of
participants, the data analysis has to be curtailed in depth and thoroughness.
Before the actual research procedure, method, and sample are outlined, an excursion
into the existing literature on qualitative methods will be undertaken that will illustrate the nature and role of this study approach in the social sciences in general and
drugs research in particular. From here, the methodological choice for the present
investigation will be explicated. Furthermore, the overall study and its method will
be theoretically and epistemologically integrated into an appropriate scientific
discipline.

3.2
3.2.1

The Significance of Qualitative Methods in Drugs Research
Qualitative Methods Within the Social Sciences

The first qualitative studies in the social sciences date back to the 1910s and 1920s
and have been carried out by cultural anthropologists such as Bronislaw Malinowski
(1913) and Franz Boas (1914). As already pointed out above, these early investigations were followed by the qualitative work of the Chicago school of sociology that
conducted ethnographic fieldwork in the area of urban sociology (e.g. Gosnell 1927;
Thrasher 1927; Cressey 1932; Frazier 1932). A few years later, the nature of qualitative methods was increasingly discredited for its perceived unscientifically subjective
and inexact nature (Lamnek 2005). A paradigm shift towards positivistic, quantitative research methods occurred (Flick 2005). Qualitative approaches never
completely disappeared, but for about 40 years, they existed in niches beyond the
scientific mainstream (Mayring 1990). Nonetheless, the paradigm battle between
proponents of deductive-nomothetic quantitative and inductive-phenomenological
qualitative methods exemplified by Karl Popper and Theodor Adorno continued
(Popper and Adorno 1962; Adorno et al. 1969). While the former refers to the logical
explanation of an event derived from universal laws and conditions, the latter aims
to describe and understand a phenomenon in its ideographic context (Wolf and
Priebe 2000).
According to Mayring, the situation started to change in the late 1970s that saw
the beginning of a ‘qualitative turn’ (Mayring 1990). Lamnek observes a relative
establishment of qualitative research designs in the social sciences since the mid1980s (2005). The psychologist Mayring and the sociologist Lamnek are frequently
referred to as the forerunners of qualitative social science research in Germany.
Meanwhile, qualitative methods have achieved widespread acceptance within the
educational sciences in particular and to a lesser degree in the social sciences.
Within psychology, quantitative approaches are still clearly dominant. Nevertheless,
the recognition of the crucial contribution offered by qualitative methods has also
begun to grow within this discipline. Branches with more alternative orientations or

62

3

Methodology

intersections with the social sciences, such as cultural psychology and certain areas
of social or educational psychology, now regularly adopt qualitative approaches
either as main or complementary methodological foundation for their studies
(Richardson 1996; Mey 2000; Camic et al. 2003). Kelle (2005a, b) states that today
both quantitative and qualitative methods are applied in empirical social research.
The results are steadily growing in general acceptance and influence on policies
(cf. Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998, p. 11). As a consequence, a pragmatic attitude
towards what Kelle calls the ‘paradigm war’ increasingly spreads out in the scientific
world and, as he puts it, takes whatever seems adequate from each paradigm or methodology for one’s research questions and leaves the rest. Thus, a ‘mature’ way of
carrying out research would utilise a well-thought-through and carefully developed
research design supporting an effective achievement of the study aims rather than
adopting dogmatic, ideologically biased stances.

3.2.2

Status and Role of Qualitative Drugs Research

The incipient paradigm shift towards a greater acknowledgement of the vital contributions of qualitative drugs research mentioned in Part I, Sect. 2.5 seems to be related
to the growing understanding that the natural sciences can only provide subjectspecific perspectives on biochemical, physiological aspects of drug use. Other disciplines that are more qualitatively oriented, such as social sciences, some domains of
psychology, history, political sciences, and anthropology, are necessary to explain
the remaining social and individual components of the drug use phenomenon. These
provide alternative, albeit equally justified views. The repeatedly proven benefit and
necessity of interdisciplinary and consequently inter-methodological approaches to this
research subject have led to a qualitative turn now becoming clearly observable
within drugs research also (Fountain and Griffiths 1999; Greenwood and Robertson
2000). Major scientific institutions, such as NIDA (National Institute of Drug Abuse)
in the USA and the EMCDDA (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug
Addiction) in Europe have come to regard the contribution of qualitative research as
vital and indispensable for certain areas (cf. Jungaberle 2007; Rhodes and Cusick
1997; Fountain and Griffiths 1999; Greenwood and Robertson 2000).
In a synopsis of the report ‘Inventory, Bibliography and Synthesis of Qualitative
Research in the European Union’ by the NAC (National Addiction Centre) for the
EMCDDA, Fountain and Griffiths (1999) outline the development and current state of
qualitative drugs research in the European Union. Even though then deductive,
quantitative work played and still plays a superordinate role, the authors observe an
obvious trend towards an increase in state funding of qualitative projects. Fountain
and Griffiths trace this development to the gradually growing recognition that qualitative research is necessary in examining the social settings in which drug use and
treatment interventions operate.
In contrast to quantitative work, qualitative studies often involve smaller samples,
investigate more in depth in a more inductive and holistic way, look for personal

3.2 The Significance of Qualitative Methods in Drugs Research

63

meanings from participant perspectives, and take the specific historical and/or social
context into account. The participant’s rather than the researcher’s perception of the
world is used as a frame of reference. Instead of testing predetermined hypotheses,
salient aspects of the phenomenon under study are allowed to emerge through the
analysis. The main aim of qualitative studies is not to identify statistically significant
generalisable relationships, but to understand how participants perceive and construct their personal realities. Whereas the quantitative researcher tends to claim
objectivity and the role of the controlling expert, in qualitative research the participant is regarded and considered the expert teaching the researcher, who recognises
their own subjectivity and inevitable influence on the research process (Taylor and
Bogdan 1998; Breuer and Roth 2003). Emphasis is placed on the respectful treatment
of participants, which has been underlined by Margaret Mead in reference to federal
research guidelines: ‘Anthropological research (a certain qualitative approach predominantly involving participant observation) does not have subjects. We work with
informants in an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect’ (in Klockars 1977, 217).
Davies (1997) has pointed out that quantitative methods applied in drugs research
carry the risk of solely reinforcing existing stereotypes and social constructions
rather than truly investigating social phenomena. In other words, not much room is
left for new and alternative perspectives diverging from views commonly accepted
as conventional wisdom. Qualitative exploratory research is particularly valuable in
areas where the existing scientific knowledge is still limited (Grund 1993), as applies
to controlled and/or rural heroin use, as well as the subcultures in which drug use
is typically embedded. Rather than relying on the application of findings from studies
of problematic, urban heroin users to entirely different settings and populations,
qualitative approaches allow for the development of innovative, phenomenonspecific concepts (Strauss 1987; Silverman 1993; Barnard et al. 1997). Furthermore, the
risk of distorted, biased responses when using self-report techniques to collect data
about socially undesirable and stigmatised behaviours, such as illicit drug and
especially heroin use (Davies 1992, 1997), can be overcome (Grund 1993), or at
least plays a less significant role.
However, qualitative research has its own limitations, one being its restricted
generalisability (Agar 1986). Therefore, the greatest scientific advance is likely to
result from a complementary application of both quantitative and qualitative
approaches within a certain research area. A fundamental qualitative exploration of
a comparatively underresearched subject matter can set the groundwork for further
scientific inquiry, including the generation of hypotheses and thus quantitative
investigations (Lambert and Wiebel 1990). Instead of treating the two approaches as
philosophically incompatible (Davies 1996), they should be regarded as offering the
opportunity of investigating different aspects of the same phenomenon so as to gain
as comprehensive an understanding as possible (e.g. Falck et al. 1996; Calderón
et al. 2000). Together with qualitative approaches, mixed method designs have also
recently begun to grow in popularity. The combination of a structure and a content
focus in the same investigation has turned out to be very useful in building on
already existing knowledge by contributing innovative, often unexpected elements
(e.g. Beckerleg 2004; Shakib et al. 2004; Rodner 2005; Mayhew et al. 2009).

64

3

Methodology

Therefore, the argument here is not against quantitative and for qualitative methods
in drugs research, but for the equal necessity and importance of both methodological
approaches, separately or together and each in due course.

3.3

Grounded Theory as Methodological Foundation

The choice of grounded theory from the wide range of qualitative methods within
the social sciences has, on the one hand, been made on the basis of my experience
with previous research projects involving different qualitative methods.
Complementarily, I reviewed the existing literature on qualitative methods in the
social sciences systematically and thoroughly and came to the conclusion that from
both a methodological and an epistemological point of view, no other approach
would be more suitable than grounded theory.
Initially, the intention had been to investigate both the content and the form and
structure of the representations offered by interviewees regarding the research matter.
The aim would have been to explore not only what people say but also how and why.
In that case, the study should have been based on a combination of grounded theory
according to Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998) and discourse analysis according to
Edwards and Potter (1992). However, when elaborating and specifying my interview design, I gradually realised that I wanted to explore and examine the meanings
of the images participants provided concerning heroin in Shetland rather than their
structures and functionalities. Moreover, I became aware that pursuing two methodologically equitably positioned foci would most probably constrain the depth and
detail of both subjects and the clarity of the overall report structure. Hence, I decided
against employing discourse analysis and to solely concentrate on the interpretation
of the meanings of interviewees’ representations and therefore to fully rely on
grounded theory for methodological access to data collection and analysis.
The foundational grounded theory approach was supplemented by anecdotal,
ethnographic data collected whenever possible during the 2 months stay on the
Shetland Islands and typically noted in a research journal kept throughout the whole
research process. Examples of such anecdotal data include conversations about
heroin use related topics with drug users, professionals, practitioners, and others,
and spontaneous ethnographic observations in relation to the general cultural life on
the Shetland Islands.

3.3.1

Historical and Epistemological Roots of Grounded Theory

Rather than a coherent, self-contained methodology, grounded theory constitutes a
set of methodological procedures to collect, analyse, and interpret qualitative data.
The approach was originally developed in the late 1960s by Anselm Strauss and
Barney Glaser (Glaser and Strauss 1967). The scientific socialisation of the former

3.3

Grounded Theory as Methodological Foundation

65

is traceable to the Chicago school of sociology and, thus, to the qualitative research
tradition of symbolic interactionism according to George Herbert Mead (1956) as
well as John Dewey’s American pragmatism (Dilger 2000). The research orientation
of the latter was determined by the Columbia school and the quantitative-statistical
methods of Paul Felix Lazarsfeld (cf. Strübing 2004). The two sociologists aimed to
synthesise their epistemologically and theoretically very different directions and
create an approach to social research that moved beyond the deductive verification
or falsification of preconceived hypotheses common in the predominantly quantitative sociology of the time (Ragin 1987). Moreover, they intended to demonstrate that
qualitative empiricism can be conducted in a pragmatic, clearly structured, and
systematic style. The success of their synthetically created method is demonstrated
by the fact that today grounded theory is one of the most frequently employed qualitative
research methods, particularly in domains concerned with social phenomena.
Since its early years, the method has been further developed, elaborated, and
altered extensively. On one side, Glaser and Strauss soon branched out, and both
pursued their own grounded theory direction. Up until the present date, countless
disputes have taken place regarding the most accurate theoretical and epistemological
classifications of the Straussian and the Glaserian traditions. Glaser’s approach is
generally understood as more empiricistical – ‘all is data’ and ‘let theory emerge’
(Glaser 1992) – and closer to a positivistic, rationalistic world view. Strauss and
later Strauss and Corbin, on the contrary, emphasise the systematic and pragmatic
applicability of systematic strategies to examine the way people perceive and construct
reality. With the assumption ‘truth is enacted’, the tendency towards a socialconstructivist understanding of the social and the scientific world becomes apparent
(Strauss and Corbin 1994): Rather than aiming to investigate an object reality
beyond and outside people’s minds, the intention is to examine, on one side, the way
individuals interpret and construct their personal world (Patton 2002) and, on the
other, how social worlds are interactively constructed (Strauss and Corbin 1998). In
his book Continual Permutation of Action, Anselm Strauss (1993) defines social
worlds by employing a working definition originally coined by Adele Clarke:
‘groups with shared commitment to certain activities, sharing resources of many
kinds to achieve their goals, and building shared ideologies about how to go about
their business’ (Clarke 1991, 131).
No universal agreement exists amongst qualitative scientists regarding the question
of whether the epistemological foundation of grounded theory according to Strauss
and Corbin should be referred to as social-constructivist (Daniel et al. 2007),
constructivist (e.g. Charmaz 2000), or constructionist (Breuer and Roth 2003). Richardson
has pointed out that generally psychologists tend to prefer constructionist, while most
sociologists tend to use constructivist, and some social-constructivist (1996). Flick
explains that a ‘number of programs with different starting points is subsumed under
these labels’, and that constructivist and constructionist are often used interchangeably (p. 78). Consequently, I consider myself entitled to consider the method of
grounded theory as applied in the present study as social-constructivist. According
to the sociologists Berger and Luckmann (1966), often regarded as belonging to the
founding fathers of social constructivism, reality is always constructed by humans.

66

3

Methodology

While this prerequisite constitutes the phenomenology of individual consciousness,
the ‘social construction of reality’ occurs above all as a communally created product
of social interaction (Knoblauch 2005; Knoblauch and Schnettler 2007). Hence,
specific objects of consciousness as well as social phenomena are created and established in social contexts and diverge between different groups. Strauss and Corbin
themselves only indirectly speak of social constructivism (1998), whereas Glaser
explicitly denies grounded theory its real constructivist nature (2002). Adele Clarke
(2003), however, trained by Strauss and further developing the grounded theory
approach since his death, clearly and assertively speaks of grounded theory as a
‘theory/methods package with an interpretative, constructionist epistemology’,
thereby referring to Fujimura (1992) and Star and Griesemer (1989).
The popular, explicitly practice-oriented, and systematic approach to data collection and analysis elaborated by Strauss and Corbin (1998) presents itself as ideal for
my research purposes. Besides its pragmatic nature, its constructivist reality perception
meets my research aim. As mentioned above, the purpose of my study is to research
the phenomenon of heroin use on the Shetland Islands by interviewing a group of
heterogeneous local heroin users. Rather than assuming the existence of an objective
reality of this phenomenon beyond my interviewees’ accounts, I adopt Strauss’s and
Corbin’s perspective and operate with reality as enacted and constructed by interviewees (1998). The notion of social constructivism as according to Berger and
Luckmann referred to above in combination with Schütz’s (1967) conception of
‘life worlds as social constructions’ appears to constitute a suitable epistemological
framework for my project. The goal hereby is the understanding and reconstruction
of the social world and its various units as perceived through the eyes of the
protagonists, in this case heroin users on the Shetland Islands (Pfadenhauer 2005).

3.3.2

The Principles of Grounded Theory

With their denomination ‘grounded theory’, Glaser and Strauss referred to the
successive elaboration of a theory that is ‘grounded’ in the data. ‘Grounded’ means
that every aspect of data interpretation is validated by testing it against the original
data material, to which a close connection is continuously maintained (Muckel
2007). This recurrent validation process is called ‘constant comparative method’
(Strauss and Corbin 1994). To concretise and systematise this method, Strauss and
Corbin developed the ‘coding paradigm’ with which they aimed to avoid interpretations being forced on the data and thus to increase the internal validity of the results
(1990). Hereby, the author ‘always looks systematically for “causal conditions”,
“phenomena/context”, “intervening conditions”, “action strategies”, and “consequences”
in the data’ (Kelle 2005a, b, p. 23).
Adele Clarke emphasised two unique aspects of the grounded theory approach.
She points out ‘that analysis begins as soon as there are data’ and describes the
process of theoretical sampling. This means that sampling is not necessarily only
determined by the endeavour to provide a representative picture of a study population,

3.3

Grounded Theory as Methodological Foundation

67

but also by theoretical concerns that have emerged in the provisional analysis.
Theoretical sampling concentrates on ‘finding new data sources (persons or things)
that can best explicitly address specific theoretically interesting facets of the
emergent analysis’ (Clarke 2003, p. 557).
To provide a further, practical description, theoretical sampling means that the
data – in most cases recorded interviews – are collected according to systematic
theorising: One interview is conducted and recorded, transcribed, and subsequently
analysed. On the basis of this first tentative analytic knowledge, the researcher/s
decide/s, which interview partner or, as Clarke explains, which data sources might
now be most suitable to increase the understanding of specific analytical features.
In this manner, the data collection proceeds until a state of ‘theoretical saturation’ is
reached and no more information is required to understand the research phenomenon and its circumstances. Even though strict theoretical sampling provides the ideal
prerequisite for a thoroughly and systematically conducted research project, reality
often shows that this time-consuming procedure is often feasible only to restricted
degrees, as was the case with the present study, which will later be outlined.
Although qualitative methods are often collectively referred to as working in
contrast to quantitative methods inductively, Strauss’s and Corbin’s coding paradigm
can rather be regarded as representing an interplay of induction, deduction, and – as
argued by some – abduction (e.g. Strübing 2004). Whereas deduction derives a
conclusion about a single case from a universal law, induction works oppositely by
deriving a universal pattern from an individual case (Sloman and Lagnado 2005).
Following Peirce (1991), it has been argued that abductive reasoning entails exploring
the data, identifying a pattern, and proposing a plausible hypothesis as typically
applied in criminalistics (Legewie 2006). Then deduction comes into play again by
refining the hypothesis based upon other plausible premises, and induction provides
the empirical substantiation (Yu 1994).
In the beginning of the data analysis, one interview transcript after the other is
subjected to ‘open coding’, an initial breaking down of the data. This means that
while reading the transcript line by line, parts of the text that appear interesting,
striking, or somehow expressive regarding the research goal are marked. After reading
the transcript again, these marked parts of the text are attributed to preliminary
concepts – ‘conceptual labels placed on discrete happenings, events, and other
instances of phenomena’ (Strauss and Corbin 1990, p. 61). All interviews are
submitted to open coding before the process of ‘axial coding’ begins. During axial
coding, relationships between concepts are examined.
All through open and axial coding, the coding paradigm is applied, which entails
systematically and permanently making comparisons and asking questions, thus
developing provisional hypotheses that are again subjected to the coding paradigm.
Questions and comparisons concern ‘causal conditions’, ‘context’, ‘intervening
conditions’, ‘action strategies’, and ‘consequences’ pertaining to the phenomenon
under study (Kelle 2005a, b) including its various properties and their dimensions,
that is, locations of properties along a continuum (Strauss and Corbin 1990). If, for
example, the phenomenon ‘intravenous heroin use’ were scrutinised, one could,
according to the elements of the coding paradigm listed above, ask questions such

68

3

Methodology

as ‘why do people inject heroin?’ ‘in which situations do they inject?’ ‘in which
situations would they not inject?’ ‘how do they carry out the procedure of injecting
heroin?’ and ‘what do people perceive as desirable and adverse effects of injecting
heroin?’ Properties that would be interesting to explore would refer, for example, to
‘frequency’, ‘risk’, thoughtfulness’, ‘intensity’. ‘Daily’, ‘risky’, ‘careless’, and
‘excessive’ could be properties located at the high end of dimensional continuums
concerning injection patterns, whereas ‘occasional’, ‘safe’, ‘thoughtful’, and ‘moderate’
could be located at the low end.
In this manner, first concepts and later categories are elaborated. Categories
constitute a higher-order, more abstract classification of concepts and are defined by
various subordinate concepts that are attributed to the category on the basis of the
coding paradigm (Strauss and Corbin 1990). For example, the concepts ‘increase in
younger users’, ‘increase in heroin supplied in Shetland’, and ‘diverse users’ could
all be classed under the category ‘expansion of the heroin scene’.
After all interviews have undergone the process of axial coding, theoretical
coding (also called selective coding) is employed. Through applying the coding
paradigm in the same style as during open and axial coding, the aim is now to create
a theoretical model on the basis of the developed concepts and categories. One category
is typically designated the ‘core category’, the central phenomenon around which
all other categories are arranged (Strauss and Corbin 1990). The theoretical model
with a core category at its centre represents an ordered, structured system in which
all categories and subcategories including all their respective properties are integrated.
This gradually developed, constructed, and fleshed out theory provides the theoretical
foundation of the final research report.
The elaboration of concepts and categories takes place on the basis of ‘memo
writing’. A ‘memo’ constitutes an often informally written note on a phenomenon,
its properties, and later concepts and categories (Charmaz 2000). Strauss and Corbin
define memos as ‘written records of analysis related to the formulation of theory’.
Although open, axial, and theoretical coding have been explained as chronologically building on each other, no strict obligation exists regarding the order. Analysis
principally starts as soon as the data collection begins and can jump between its
different stages as well as moving in recurrent circles. Since the different types of
coding are based on different levels of theoretical abstraction, open coding tends to
be more prevalent in earlier research phases and axial and theoretical coding at more
advanced stages; all can still occur until the research report is printed.

3.4

Specification of the Research Perspective and Question

Before and when first entering the research field, the intention had been to examine
the behavioural phenomenon of heroin use in its particular facets, similarities, and
variations. However, with a growing number of interviews being carried out and
with simultaneously continuing analysis, I found that the structures of the social
world(s) (Clarke 1997, 2003; Thrasher 1927; Cressey 1932; Bohnsack 2005) – that

3.4

Specification of the Research Perspective and Question

69

is, the Shetland heroin scene, within which heroin use is enacted – gradually became
more salient as the major theme of this study. Over and over again, the concentration of interviewees was on the scene as the social environment surrounding and
embedding both personal and overall heroin consumption. After elaborate memo
writing, many intensive discussions with other researchers, and thorough contemplation, I decided to adjust my investigative focus. I found that the heroin
scene in its characteristics, peculiarities, and historical transitions crystallised as
a topic of great importance to the majority of the 24 interviewees. A considerable
number of the interviewed users moved far beyond mere descriptions of the subculture as a group of people sharing the same interest. Besides concrete descriptions, interpretative-analytic accounts of a superordinate social system were
frequently provided that bore resemblance to what Glaser and Strauss refer to as
‘substantive theories’.
‘Substantive theories’ constitute theoretical explanations about a specific area of
inquiry – for example, patient care or professional education – and exhibit a certain
degree of theoretical abstraction. ‘Formal theories’, in contrast, explicate subject
matters that are conceptual in nature, such as stigma or socialisation, and are typically characterised by greater abstraction (Glaser and Strauss 1967).
The advanced level of theoretical abstraction and reflection offered by many
when speaking about the scene and its features had early attracted my attention.
The high level of reflection and abstraction caught my eye, especially in contrast
with accounts given on personal using patterns, the theme I primarily planned to
concentrate on. Here, users tended to present reports of significantly more concrete and anecdotal style. One explanation could be that reflections on a theoretical
meta-level tend to be significantly more difficult when the subject matter concerns
aspects of the self. This effect may be further compounded with respect to behaviours commonly regarded as socially deviant and hence unacceptable, such as the
use of heroin. Interviewees’ personal theories regarding the Shetland heroin scene
both convinced and intrigued me strongly, and I began to develop a profound
interest in the objective structures of the subculture as opposed to the subjective
patterns of use.
I saw the possibility to contribute to the existent scientific and general understanding of heroin use more widely by focussing on the social world of the scene
within which heroin use takes place than by merely exploring the behaviour of
heroin use per se. Also for this modified research intention, grounded theory would
constitute the most fitting approach, since the method is particularly suitable regarding the analysis of action and interaction as well as social structures (UCSF
Foundation 2009). Nonetheless, I did not fully abandon my initial research angle
but rather adopted a broader perspective and altered the weighting. I undertook a
shift from investigating behaviour within the context of Shetland’s location-specific
circumstances to studying the micro-social structures encompassing this behaviour.
Consulting Strauss’s and Corbin’s ‘conditional matrix’, the scene could be considered part of the location-specific circumstances on a micro-social level (Strauss and
Corbin 1998). The conditional matrix according to Strauss and Corbin (1990) constitutes a circular spiral. The centre point comprises the individual action pertaining

70

3

Methodology

to a phenomenon (according to the first edition of their book The Basics of Qualitative
Research, 1990) or the ‘individual’ (according to the second edition of the book,
1998; see figure below). Moving towards the margins of the spiral, one passes from
the level of groups and family over to community and finally the global level.

l
oba
Gl
nal
Natio

Region
al

nity
mu
m
Co
Organizationa
Su
bo
r
u
o
Gr p

nizational
ga

Ins
titu

l
na
tio

l

Individual

ily

Fam

Strauss and Corbin (1998)
The aim of the conditional matrix is to always consider the immediate and wider
social context within which a social phenomenon typically occurs in order to
prevent tunnel vision (Strauss and Corbin 1998). Hence, heroin use can be examined
on an individual, group, community, regional, etc., level. Equally, the individual
(here the individual heroin user), group (the heroin scene), or community (the general
Shetland community) surrounding the behaviour can present the focal point of a
scientific investigation.
In spite of the scene having become my foremost research priority, I still regarded
and treated accounts concerning personal experiences as invaluable in their ability
to complement and exemplify the former. Therefore, both idiographic, subjective
perceptions of social phenomena and individual heroin using careers received a
comparatively subordinate but nonetheless significant status in conducting the interview
analysis and in the textualisation of the results.

3.4

Specification of the Research Perspective and Question

3.4.1

71

Revised Research Question

According to the shifted research perspective, the research question was adjusted to:
How do heroin users of different styles in Shetland perceive and represent the
nature and socio-historical developments of the local heroin scene?

3.4.2

Cultural Psychology as Meta-theoretical Framework

Alongside the change in my research perspective over the course of the data collection
and the accompanying first analysis, I began to question my meta-theoretical framework. With my research focus proceeding to shift from individual behaviour to
social structures, my initial social-psychological orientation began to lose its
relevance. Social psychology aims to identify and investigate universal behavioural
patterns of humans in the social context (e.g. Fachgruppe Sozialpsychologie in der
Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie 2009) and thus primarily reflects and relies
on the paradigm of conventional psychology.
Increasingly, cultural psychology presented itself as an appropriate and useful
discipline within the scope of which the study could be integrated effectively. Rather
than assuming the applicability of universal laws across cultures when aiming to
explain psychological phenomena, cultural psychology proposes an inseparability
of culture and mind. Therefore, psychological theories grounded in one culture are
likely to be limited in applicability when applied to different cultures (Markus and
Kitayama 1991). Richard Shweder, one of the leading scientific representatives
within the field, defines cultural psychology as ‘the study of the way cultural traditions
and social practices regulate, express, and transform the human psyche, resulting
less in psychic unity for humankind than in ethnic divergences in mind, self, and
emotion’ (1991, p. 72). With its relativistic view, it is often regarded as an alternative research area within the overall area of psychology (e.g. Jahoda 1992), or even
a separate discipline (e.g. Shweder 1990) that considers and integrates both the
situational and the historical context of a psychological phenomenon under study
(Cornejo 2007). Carlos Cornejo, professor in theoretical psychology, emphasises
that cultural psychology ‘can contribute to expanding the traditional ways of doing
psychology when it develops more sophisticated theories of the psychological
subject’ (2007, p. 244).

3.4.2.1

‘Culture’ According to Cultural Psychology

In this framework, culture is generally understood as a genuine component of every
psychologically relevant human expression (Markus and Kitayama 1991). On balance,
the different streams within cultural psychology assume that culture represents a

72

3

Methodology

sign, knowledge, rule, and symbol system that, as a culture-specific foundation,
structures human areas of action. At the same time, culture is permanently
construed and altered in and through the conduct of everyday life and practice
(cf. Straub 1998).
With his theory of symbolic action and his understanding of culture as a field
of action, Ernst Boesch has contributed significantly to the current conception of
cultural psychology. According to his definition,
Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behavior acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievement of human groups, including
their embodiments in artefacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional ideas and
especially their attached values. (Ernst E. Boesch 1991, p. 29)

Under this definition, culture can be characterised both as structure and
process.

3.4.2.2

Research Angles Within Cultural Psychology

Whereas the impact of culture, tradition, and social practices on the psyche constitutes one major research subject, the investigation of social structures is
similarly of interest within this scientific branch. Based on Ernst Boesch’s theory
of symbolic action, Cornejo differentiates between two main streams: the hermeneutic-historicist and the phenomenological-existential perspective (2007).
While according to Cornejo, the former embraces social or macro-social, collective
processes and structures, the latter refers to individual or micro-social
processes.
As explicated above, my project involves the investigation of the nature and
characteristics of the Shetland heroin scene as a central focus and of individual
experiences as a subordinate subject. Hence, both perspectives – which, according
to Cornejo, can be understood as the two end points of one spectrum rather than
two different categories – are adopted. Regarding the cut-off point between macrosocial and micro-social, no universal agreement exists, and, therefore, authors
differ in their respective conceptualisation. This becomes apparent, for example,
when comparing Strauss’s and Corbin’s with Cornejo’s definition of macro- and
micro-social. Sometimes, authors include a third, meso-social level (de la Rúa
2007). In the present study, the level of the overall heroin subculture is referred to
as micro-social, and local, national, and global aspects subsumed under macrosocial. The individual level relates to single persons. As has already been demonstrated, grounded theory represents a methodological approach that can be
employed effectively and smoothly in the overriding theoretical framework of
cultural psychology. In fact, in its social process orientation, explicit methodological
and epistemological suitability has been ascribed to grounded theory for cultural
psychological research (Das Psychologie Lexikon 2009) that self-evidently relies
primarily on qualitative methods.

3.5 Preconceptions

3.5

73

Preconceptions

It has been pointed out that the researcher’s preconceptions with respect to the
research matter are likely to bias their interpretations: Confirmatory evidence may
be accepted without reflection, and inconsistent information may not be dissected
particularly critically (Gilovich 1993, p. 53). The analysis and interpretation of both
qualitative and quantitative data cannot be disentangled from the specific history
and socialisation of the person conducting the research, and consequently is
influenced by a complex interplay of preconceptions and expectations concerning a
research topic. In this context, Glaser has emphasised that an empirical investigation without any preconceptions is not feasible and would result in an excess of
incoherent observations and descriptions rather than empirically grounded categories
and hypotheses (Glaser 1992). On the other hand, when forced by preconception,
data ‘is constantly derailed from relevance’ (Glaser 1992, 123). Therefore, in order
to increase the internal validity of the results, that is, the analysed and interpreted
data, the researcher needs to be as aware as possible of all personal biases that presumably impact on the different stages of the research process, including the development of the study design, the data collection, analysis and interpretation, and the
final presentation in a scientific paper or book. While not every single subjective
element influencing the study process can be specified, as many as possible should
be perceived and communicated in their main aspects.
The preconceptions most relevant to the present study are traceable to a number
of central determinants that differed in their influential weight according to the
specific points in time of the research process:
1. The explorative investigation on heroin use in Shetland conducted by the author
in 2000/2001 (Stallwitz and Shewan 2004).
2. The qualitative interview study about heroin use and the heroin scene in Shetland
with local professionals for which the author conducted the data collection
alongside the data collection for the present study (Stallwitz 2007).
3. The Scottish drug misuse statistics on drug and heroin use in Shetland from 2004
to 2009 (ISD 2004–2009).
4. The author’s knowledge and experiences gained from working as a drugs worker
and drugs worker assistant for three and a half years for Glasgow city council.
5. A wide range of diverse literature on drug and heroin use based on different
theoretical approaches and assumptions.
6. Conversations with fellow drugs researchers.
As pointed out before, many other minor interwoven factors are likely to also
have influenced my preconceived assumptions, research expectations, and style but
cannot be specified precisely.
Regarding points (1), (2), and (3), the expectation had been that the heroin scene
had further grown in size and in the extent to which it was problematic, including
the rise in youth involvement, intravenous use, and infectious diseases. The changes

74

3

Methodology

were assumed to be associated with certain developments within the Scottish
mainstream as well as in the drug culture.
With respect to point (4), a notion of heavy, destructive, and problem-related
heroin use in inner city regions of Glasgow had been developed. It was anticipated
that in Shetland, the heroin using trend might show similar tendencies.
Concerning points (5) and (6), awareness had been formed of heroin using
patterns potentially ranging from very infrequent smoking or snorting to frequent
dangerous modes of consumption. Hence, the full width of this spectrum was
expected to be evident in Shetland.

3.6
3.6.1

Research Procedure
Research Location and Design

The data collection of this study has been conducted in Lerwick, the capital of
Shetland, over a 2-month period from the beginning of May until the beginning of
July 2004. An emergent research design was used as the original interview schedule
was adjusted over the course of the interviews, with some topics being dropped and
others, which interviewees presented as important, being added or specifically
emphasised.

3.6.2

Participant Criteria

As already mentioned above, I intended to interview 20 Shetland heroin users –
10 clients of Shetland Community Drugs Team and 10 ‘hidden’ users, who were not
receiving any drugs treatment and included socially integrated, occasional,
controlled heroin users. After I had interviewed 10 clients and non-clients, respectively,
I interviewed another four clients, as I knew that they could provide information on
novel aspects of the research phenomenon.
‘Client heroin users’ refers to people whose main drug of choice is heroin and
who are receiving substitution treatment and/or counselling for their heroin consumption. Hence, they consume heroin in a style and to an extent that it interferes
with parts of their lives, such as their physical, psychological, social, or economical
well-being. This group of heroin users was primarily recruited at the Shetland
Community Drugs Team (CDT)1 and to a lesser extent at the Shetland Youth
Information Team (SYIT), a service for young people aged 12–25. However, as

1

Access to client users was assisted by the good co-operation of CDT staff and clients, who had
already been supportive during my first study and were very interested in the implementation of a
further research project into local heroin use.

3.6 Research Procedure

75

heroin-using SYIT clients also tended to be clients with CDT, all interviews with
members of this group were finally organised through CDT.
The term Hidden heroin users embraces people with a range of different using
patterns who are not receiving any treatment for their drug use. The aim was to obtain
the biggest possible proportion of occasional, recreational, socially integrated consumers whose heroin use was neither physically addictive nor interfered their physical,
psychological, social, or economical well-being. Hidden users should have used
heroin at least five times in the past 3 years and at least 10 times in their lives.2
Hidden users were recruited through social networking, as further outlined below.

3.6.3

Sampling

As already mentioned, I initially started my study at CDT. The first week of my stay,
I used to familiarise myself and build up rapport with clients by spending time in the
open drop-in and waiting area of the agency. Here, clients came in to await their
appointments or just have a coffee, a cigarette, and chat with other clients or the
supervising voluntary drugs worker. By taking part in these social happenings, people could get to know me and my intentions on an informal and unforced way. All
of the clients agreed willingly to be interviewed about their experiences with heroin
use in Shetland, and many assisted by establishing further contacts with other users,
also primarily clients. In addition, drugs and youth workers supported the recruiting
process. Altogether, 14 clients were interviewed and tape-recorded. The age within
this group ranged from 17 to 38.
Contacts with hidden heroin users were mainly made through ‘snowballing’
(Biernacki and Waldorf 1981), that is, extensive social networking and socialising.
Social connections from the data collection phase of a previous study (cf. Stallwitz
and Shewan 2004) could be utilised and new contacts established by living in
Lerwick for 2 months.
Heroin users not receiving any drugs treatment were significantly more difficult
to access and by and large strikingly less prepared to agree to an interview. Not only
were they being asked to speak about their personal engagement in a generally
highly stigmatised behaviour, but to do so while living in a small, socially closeknit, geographically isolated island community. This fact obviously intensified the
fear of being detected as a heroin user and the potential consequential social costs.
Most clients, in contrast, claimed not to share these concerns. They seemed to
perceive the interview, conducted confidentially on CDT premises, as no more
threatening than coming to the drugs project in the first place.
Hidden users generally needed a much greater degree of reassurance about security
and protection before they subjectively perceived an interview as safe in terms of

2

Access to hidden users was facilitated through contacts with drug-using and non-drug-using
individuals made during my current and previous stay in summer 2000.

76

3

Methodology

protecting their anonymity. I counteracted doubts and reservations with the aid of an
information sheet containing the basic aims and purposes of my study and by explicitly
addressing potential fears. To every interview candidate, I provided reassurance
regarding the absolutely confidential treatment of the interview recording, which
would immediately after the interview be locked in a cupboard in my private accommodation, to which only I would have access throughout the time I stayed in
Shetland. After my departure, I would store the tapes securely and no one but myself
would ever gain access, since transcription and analysis would solely be carried out
by me. This way, I finally managed to conduct and record an interview with 10 hidden
heroin users.
In contrast to the group of clients, a decisive proportion of hidden heroin users
explicitly declined to participate in an interview out of fear of being publicly
revealed as involved with heroin. Several hidden consumers were pointed out by
third persons or became otherwise known to be using heroin. However, due to the
time restriction of 2 months, sometimes personal contacts could not be sufficiently
established. This applied in particular to occasional and socially well-integrated
consumers, whose use was only known to a very limited group of friends and close
acquaintances. On the one hand, they were very difficult to get to know. On the
other hand, they were especially reluctant to agree to a recorded interview, as they
presumably felt they would put to too much at risk in terms of job position, relationships
to family and friends, and their general social position in the island community.
For people closer to the social margins, apparently less was felt to be at stake.
Nonetheless, there seemed to be a large number of hidden users, of whom a decisive
degree appeared to be socially well integrated with usually occasional, controlled,
recreational styles of heroin use. The availability of an additional month for data
collection would most likely have increased the number of occasional users within
the study sample by at least two or three.
The implementation of strict theoretical sampling in the form of recording an
interview, transcribing and analysing it, and deciding on this basis which person to
interview next to arrive at a comprehensive understanding of the research phenomenon (cf. Strauss and Corbin 1998 or Mey and Mruck 2005) was, due to the time
restriction, only partly feasible. After the completion of each interview, the main
features of the conversation as well as related spontaneous, analytical, and interpretative thoughts were noted in form of memos (cf. Glaser and Strauss 1967; Strauss
and Corbin 1998). Additionally, when the recruitment process allowed, memos
concerned with analytic themes and general field notes were written in between
interviews as often as possible. Recruitment endeavours, basically performed
throughout the day and night whenever appropriate, only ended 2 h before departure
from Shetland in the beginning of July. Due to the necessity to use the limited
available time either for arranging an interview with a hidden user or to conduct
one, the transcription could only be commenced after return to Germany.
In qualitative research, the comparatively small sample sizes should be
compensated for by purposive and criteria-led sampling that aims at maximising
the representativeness and thereby the validity of the data (cf. Kelle et al. 1993).
Therefore, an equal gender split and broad distribution regarding ages and

3.6 Research Procedure

77

socio-economic backgrounds was aimed at, as well as a wide range of heroin-using
patterns. This way, the aim was to gain as deep and comprehensive an insight into
the research matter as possible.

3.6.4

Participant Characteristics3

With eight males and six females, an equal gender distribution within the client
group could be approximated, since client interviewees could be easily accessed
and selected. However, due to the generally difficult access to hidden heroin users
due to their pronounced secrecy and the seemingly even greater secrecy of female
users, the female/male relation for this group resulted in three to seven.

3.6.4.1

Clients

Of the 14 client users, four matched the criteria of full ‘social integration’ with
being employed or in education, living in permanent housing, and having many
friends who did not use heroin. Eight were unemployed, and two alternated between
employment and unemployment and were currently unemployed. Apart from three,
who claimed to currently live in temporary housing, all stated permanent accommodation. Two of the clients asserted that they had stopped using for several months
and weeks, respectively, but previously to have used heavily and habitually – one to
have smoked and one to have injected. Of the 12 who admitted still using, one
reported exclusively smoking and the remainder reported chiefly injecting heavily
and habitually when having access to heroin.

3.6.4.2

Non-clients and Occasional Users

Of the ten participants not in treatment with CDT, six matched the criteria of full
social integration just defined, two were at the margin of this group, one stated that
he currently dealt and was unemployed, and one refused to provide any personal
information. All but the one who did not provide any personal information claimed
to live in permanent accommodation, mostly rented houses or flats.
Besides the distinction made between clients and non-clients (i.e. hidden heroin
users), occasional users are treated separately. The subdivision between non-clients
and occasional users is made, as the individual, social, and heroin use conditions of
the latter were found to differ enormously from the other two groups, which justifies
a separate group. Hence, occasionally using non-clients will from now on be referred
to as occasional users and the remainder of this group simply as non-clients, implying

3

See Table 3.1 for further details of interviewees.

78

3

Methodology

that the latter engage in varying consumption patterns, including habitual use. All
non-clients reported to have had at least a short period of physical dependence and
many to alternate between habitual, partly heavy, and less frequent or even occasional
use. Occasional users were characterised by patterns of physically non-habitual use
not interfering with any area of life.
Regarding patterns of use amongst non-clients, one stated to sometimes smoke
regularly and sometimes occasionally, and one to have had a strong smoking habit
for several years but not to have used for approximately half a year. One claimed to
use regularly and intravenously and to adapt his pattern of use to fit around his job.
Two stated to use regularly and habitually, taking as much as they could get as often
as they could get it, of whom one claimed to be prescribed buprenorphine at the
local health centre. Someone else maintained to currently get a methadone prescription
from a GP outside Lerwick and not to have used for many months now. Apart from
the two just mentioned, all other non-clients asserted not to receive any treatment
for their drug use.
Of the four occasional users, two claimed to smoke heroin with a frequency
ranging from every few years to every few weeks. Very rarely they would use a few
times a week. The other two stated to not have used for 1 and 2 years, respectively.
One affirmed that they would use again if offered and the other to have stopped
permanently and to have no interest in using again. Two of the occasional users
state to have used for as long as approximately 20 years or even longer and to have
experienced one short period each of more frequent use with mild symptoms of
physical and psychological dependence. Since the more frequent use was not characteristic of their typical using styles and of a, compared to their complete using
careers, very short time, they are nonetheless allocated to the occasional users. Still,
those brief periods are mentioned and discussed in the empirical Part II.
In the subsequent Part II, clients are indicated by C, non-clients by N, and
occasional users by O (Table 3.1).

3.6.5

Research Instrument

A comprehensive, semi-structured interview schedule was designed that covered all
areas relevant to the research aim (see Appendix 1). The wide array of topics
embraced (1) personal details, (2) personal heroin-using history, (3) current patterns
of use, (4) personal meaning of heroin/heroin use (including personal relationship
to heroin use and ‘heroin high’), (5) the heroin scene in Shetland, (6) heroin use and
identity, and (7) control over personal heroin use. Each topic embraced another 5–7
sub-points differentiating the overriding themes.
Interviews were conducted as openly and naturally as possible, albeit ensuring
that all areas of the very comprehensive guidelines were sufficiently covered. Hence,
the guidelines were employed as mnemonic device rather than a questionnaire that
was strictly adhered to. As already mentioned, the interview schedule was of emergent
nature insofar as it was gradually adjusted over the course of the interviews.

Mid-20s
Mid-20s
Mid-30s
Early 20s

4. Clairea

5. Monaa

6. Helena

7. Oscara
Employed

Unemployed

Unemployed

Unemployed

Age
Employment status
Non-Clients (Not Clients of the Shetland Community Drugs Team)
Late 40s
Employed
Occasional users, only
1. Olivera
smoking, sometimes
2. Kaya
Early 40s
Employed
snorting
3. Christiana Late 20s
In education
4. Isaaca
Late 20s
In education
Differing patterns of use,
5. Michaela Late 20s
Alternation employment &
only smoking or snorting
unemploy.; currently unempl.
Early 30s
Employed
6. Philipa
Differing patterns of use,
7. Angusa
Mid-30s
Employed
smoking, snorting & IV
8. Duncana
Mid-30s
Unemployed
Differing patterns of use,
9. Jamesa
N.I.
N.I.
mainly IV
10. Lillya
Mid-20s
Alternation employment &
unemploy.; currently unempl.
Clients (Clients of the Shetland Community Drugs Team)
Late 30s
In education
Regular users, only smoking 1. Joannaa
2. Patricka
Late 20s
Employed
Regular users, mainly IV
3. Cathya
Early 20s
Unemployed

Table 3.1 Participant characteristics
Participant details

Several years
Ca. 15 years
15–20 years
N.I.
Ca. 10 years

Several years
Several years
Ca. 5 years

Permanent
Permanent
Permanent
N.I.
Permanent

Permanent
Permanent
Permanent

Permanent

Permanent

Permanent

Several years

Ca. 15 years

More than 5 years

More than 5 years

Ca. 25 years
Ca. 20 years
Several years
Several years
Ca. 5 years

Permanent
Permanent
Permanent
Permanent
Permanent

Temporary

Duration of use

Accommodation

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

(continued)

Not use for while
Yes
Yes

Not used for while
Yes
Not used for while
Yes
Yes

Yes
Not used for while
Yes
Not used for while
Yes

Current use

3.6 Research Procedure
79

a

N.I. No information
All names have been changed

Table 3.1 (continued)
Participant details
Age

Mid-30s
Early 20s
Mid-30s
Early 30s

11. Robina

12. Hannaha

13. Gordona

14. Marka

Mid-30s

Mid-30s

Early 20s

10. Gerrya

9. Rick

a

8. Justina

Employment status

Unemployed

Unemployed

Employed

Alternation employment &
unemploy.; currently unempl.
Alternation employment &
unemploy.; currently unempl.
Unemployed

Unemployed

Temporary

Permanent

Permanent

Temporary

Permanent

Permanent

Permanent

Accommodation

15–20 years

15–20 years

More than 5 years

15–20 years

10 to 15 years

Ca. 10 years

Several years

Duration of use

Yes

Yes

Not used for while

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Current use

80
3
Methodology

3.6 Research Procedure

81

Accordingly, a number of sub-themes were dropped, while others moved from the
background to the foreground and completely new ones arrived. Point (4) lost some
of its initial weight and importance, whereas (5) and (6) were only later formulated
as own topics when interviewees recurrently gave explicit attention to these subject
matters. A copy of the complete interview guidelines as employed in the interviews
is attached in Appendix 1.

3.6.6

Interview Setting

Interviews were carried out one to one in strict privacy. For clients, the setting was
a room in the CDT’s administrative premises, an environment familiar to most clients.
One client was interviewed at the main CDT premises in one of the treatment rooms.
The setting for recreational users depended on their preferences and was either the
same room or their private flats.
The room in the administrative premises provided the advantage of being located
about 10 min from the main CDT premises and hardly being used during the data
collection period. In addition, interviews were arranged for times only when the
building was completely empty. Thus, interviewees seen entering the building
were less readily associated with CDT and, moreover, not seen by anyone inside
the building.
For my own security, I carried a mobile phone and a personal alarm during all
interviews, as many of my interviewees were men I either did not know at all or had
only met briefly. However, not a single unpleasant situation occurred and most
interview conversations were characterised by a friendly, open, and often trustful
atmosphere.

3.6.7

Data Collection and Interview Conditions

Interviews were conducted according to the above sketched interview schedule and
tape-recorded. Interview lengths ranged between 42 and 123 min. Prior to each interview, the participants’ informed consent to record the interview was obtained.
Participants were assured of confidentiality. Furthermore, they were encouraged to
only answer questions they felt comfortable with and, in case of discomfort, to finish
the interview at any point. Basic information about the research project and its
purposes was summarised on sheets interviewees received prior to their interview.

3.6.7.1

Specificities of Conducting Research in a Small, Remote,
and Isolated Island Location

Investigating a highly stigmatised behaviour in a small, close-knit, and easy to
overlook community entailed a number of complications and recruitment hurdles.

82

3

Methodology

As already mentioned above, hidden users in particular seem to have been wary
about taking a social and legal risk when speaking to an unknown person about using
heroin, and even being tape-recorded. Consequently, a considerable number of potential non-client interview partners declined when approached. These were mostly
approached by third persons – people they and I knew, who acted as mediators.
Due to the great responsibility I had when obtaining information about people’s
experiences with local heroin use, I had to be very cautious to avoid the slightest
risk of disseminating confidential information. Since I virtually worked in a ‘24 h
recruitment modus’, I had to be particularly careful in informal settings, such as at
parties and in pubs. I almost always carried information sheets about the research
project with me and, when speaking with people, tried to inconspicuously direct the
conversation to what they thought and knew about heroin and its users on the islands.
This way, I aimed at specifically hidden users. The more people I got to know, including heroin users, and the more I learned about heroin use and the heroin scene in
Shetland, the more watchful I had to be not to reveal any sensitive information to anyone I was talking to informally. Hence, I took part in many social events in order to
meet people, but avoided participating in the Shetland style of alcohol intoxication.
Besides the increased caution I always had to exercise, I had to be very careful to
maintain professional distance from my interviewees not to get roped into any social
entanglements. Such proved to be significantly more likely in the small Shetland
community than in an anonymous big city. Since I met and spoke with many interviewees, including clients in an array of different formal, informal, and social
situations, I was confronted with expectations to socialise that I probably would not
have encountered in an urban environment. Therefore, I had to be particularly alert
to uphold a professional distance. At this, I attempted to convey that I was an independent person from outside, whose purpose and interest was to respectfully
conduct research aiming at the expansion of the existing knowledge about heroin
use and users, including the decomposition of traditionally passed on prejudices.

3.6.8

Provisions for Trustworthiness

To further increase the credibility of the results, I obtained and collected data – such
as relevant statistics – from different areas and newspaper publications. Moreover,
frequent email and telephone consultations with both my mentor and my methodological supervisor – the former being an experienced drugs researcher and the
latter a professional qualitative methodologist – served the purpose of providing
objective reflections on the ongoing research process.

3.6.9

Confidentiality and Ethical Considerations

As outlined above, I am very conscious of the close-knit nature of Lerwick, where
social acts have a high visibility. As heroin use is a socially unacceptable activity,

3.7

Data Analysis

83

I am consciously vigilant about not exposing respondents to the risk of being
identified as heroin users by any member of the community. Therefore, names,
places, and other personal details are changed wherever necessary to protect the
anonymity of the participants. Many interviewees, especially non-clients, only
agreed to an interview after having been assured of no one but me ever gaining
access to the original interview material. This responsibility I have always handled
highly conscientiously. Also, I was aware of the potential of the interviews to upset
respondents, as their heroin use could be tied to personal problems. This was
specifically relevant with respect to clients. Through careful and sensitive questioning, I tried to decrease the risk of touching delicate topics. At the end of each
interview, I always asked for respondents’ feedback on their personal experience of
the interview and offered them a copy of the final report.

3.7

Data Analysis

After the completion of the data collection in Shetland and return to Hamburg, the
interviews were transcribed and analysed according to the coding paradigm
outlined above. Transcription and analysis were conducted ‘theoretically’, which
means that, as in theoretical sampling, after an interview was transcribed and
subjected to open line by line coding, another interview was chosen that was
suitable in terms of providing information on specific theoretical phenomena
currently at the centre of analytic attention. When the concepts and categories pertaining to one specific phenomenon were sufficiently elaborated and theoretically
saturated, another phenomenon would be focussed on and treated. Frequently,
several phenomena were scrutinised simultaneously. Due to their interconnectivity, an
artificial separation would have hindered the analytic process. In this context, care
was taken to focus only as many phenomena at one time as could confidently be
handled without confusion. All interviews were transcribed and coded in this
manner. First, axial and even theoretical codings emerged relatively early in the
coding process. Some were maintained until the completion of the analysis, while
others were abandoned or adjusted. Every interview was fully analysed and coded
twice and subsequently analysed axially and theoretically. Throughout the whole
analysis process, the theoretical abstractions and interpretations derived from the
codes were validated by being checked and double-checked against the original
interview material.
Through a reiterative process of inductive-deductive analysis, themes and subthemes emerged that are related to each other in a complex interplay of mutual
dependence. On the basis of these gradually revealed relationships, two theoretical
models of the Shetland heroin scene were developed – a structural model describing
and explicating the nature of the outward appearance and internal structure of the
island heroin scene (cf. Fig. 7.1, p. 195), and a process model depicting and illuminating the historical changes and changes the scene had undergone since its beginnings in the late 1970s (cf. Fig. 8.1, p. 253).

84

3

Methodology

Throughout the analysis process, I attended numerous qualitative research workshops
(Forschungswerkstätten) to minimise the single researcher bias. Moreover, a
grounded theory colloquium was participated in for 2 years, which had a similar
character to the workshops. At both the colloquium and the workshops, several
people would present the current status of their qualitative research, which would
then be discussed by the group, which consisted of fellow researchers. Group work
included communal coding, presenting and debating preliminary theoretical models,
and discussing questions about the research process or qualitative research in
general. Turns were typically taken so as to give every researcher the opportunity to
present their study. The person presenting their scientific project could obtain alternative perspectives on their research phenomenon and see whether their theoretical
model was perceived as coherent, comprehensive, and persuasive by uninvolved
onlookers. As already pointed out, the group work was complemented by frequently
discussing the research process with my mentor and my methodological supervisor,
as well as numerous other professional researchers and methodologists.
Following Glaser’s advice, the bulk of the existing literature relevant for my
research matter – apart from method related literature – was not reviewed before
finishing the coding phase. Otherwise, Glaser warns, the researcher will be desensitised by concepts borrowed from the technical literature (Glaser 1992). Glaser recommends reviewing the relevant technical literature in the sorting phase, when
written memos are arranged and rearranged to give shape to the emerging grounded
theory. In order to avoid confounding concepts emerging from the data analysis
with already existing concepts, and to preserve the ‘purity’ of the study results, the
literature review was carried out after finishing the writing process of the empirical
part. Thereupon, an extensive and thorough review of the traditional and topical
scientific literature, as well as of non-scientific literature, such as newspaper articles
linked to the central topics arising from the analysis, has been conducted.

References
Adorno, T. W., Dahrendorf, R., Albert, H., Pilot, H., Habermas, J., & Popper, K. R. (1969). Der
Positivismusstreit in der deutschen Soziologie. Darmstadt/Neuwied: Luchterhand.
Agar, M. (1986). Review article on two discourse analysis volumes. International Journal of
Pragmatics, 9(5), 710–716.
Barnard, M., Parkin, S., & McKeganey, N. (1997). Report of a pilot study on the factors influencing
drug use among young people in Shetland. Unpublished report, Centre for Drug Misuse
Research, Glasgow.
Beckerleg, S. (2004). How ‘cool’ is heroin injection at the Kenya coast. Drugs: Education,
Prevention and Policy, 11(1), 67–77.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. A treatise in the sociology of
knowledge. Garden City: Anchor Books.
Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral
sampling. Sociological Methods and Research, 10(2), 141–163.
Boas, F. (1914). Mythology and folk-tales of the North American Indians. Journal of American
Folklore, 27(106), 374–410.

References

85

Boesch, E. E. (1991). Symbolic action theory and cultural psychology. Berlin/New York: Springer.
Bohnsack, R. (2005). “Social Worlds” und “Natural Histories”. Zum Forschungsstil der Chicagoer
Schule anhand zweier klassischer Studien. Zeitschrift für qualitative Bildungs-, Beratungs- und
Sozialforschung (ZBBS), 6(1), 105–127.
Breuer, F., & Roth, W.-M. (2003). Subjectivity and reflexivity in the social sciences: Epistemic
windows and methodical consequences. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative
Social Research, 4(2), Art. 25.
Calderón, J. L., Baker, R. S., & Wolf, K. (2000). Focus groups: A qualitative method complementing
quantitative research for studying culturally diverse groups. Education and Health, 13(1),
91–95.
Camic, P., Yardley, L., & Rhodes, J. (Eds.). (2003). Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding
perspectives in methodology and design. Washington, DC: APA.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin &
Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Clarke, A. (1991). Social worlds theory as organizational theory. In D. Maines (Ed.), Social organization and social process: Essays in honor of Anselm Strauss (pp. 119–158). New York:
Aldine.
Clarke, A. (1997). A social worlds research adventure: The case of reproductive science. In A. L.
Strauss & J. Corbin (Eds.), Grounded theory in practice (pp. 63–94). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Clarke, A. (2003). Situational analyses: Grounded theory mapping after the postmodern turn.
Symbolic Interaction, Special Issue on Theory and Method, 26(4), 553–576.
Cornejo, C. (2007). Review essay: The locus of subjectivity in cultural studies. Culture &
Psychology, 13(2), 243–256.
Cressey, P. G. (1932). The taxi-dance hall: A sociological study in commercialized recreation and
city life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Daniel, B. K., Schwier, R. A., & Ross, H. (2007). Synthesis of the process of learning through
discourse in a formal virtual learning community. Journal of Interactive Learning Research,
18(4), 461–477.
Davies, J. B. (1992). The myth of addiction. Chur: Harwood Academic.
Davies, J. B. (1996). Health research: Need for a methodological revolution? Health Education
Research, 11(2), i–iv.
Davies, J. B. (1997). Drugspeak: The analysis of drug discourse. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic.
de la Rúa, F. A. (2007). Networks and Identifications: A Relational Approach to Social Identities.
International Sociology, 22(6), 683–699.
Dilger, M. (2000). Grounded theory. Ein Überblick über ihre charakteristischen Merkmale. Essay,
Freie Universität Berlin.
Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage.
Fachgruppe Sozialpsychologie in der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie. (2009). Was ist
Sozialpychologie? Retrieved June 12, 2009, from http://www.sozialpsychologie.de/
sozialpsychologie.html
Falck, R. S., Carlson, R. G., Siegal, H. A., & Wang, J. (1996). Attitudes toward needle ‘sharing’
among injection drug users: Combining qualitative and quantitative research methods. Human
Organization, 55(3), 361–369.
Flick, U. (2005). Qualitative research in sociology in Germany and the US – State of the art,
Differences and developments. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social
Research, 6(3), Art. 23.
Fountain, J., & Griffiths, P. (1999). Synthesis of qualitative research on drug use in the European
Union: Report on an EMCDDA project. European Addiction Research, 5, 4–20.
Frazier, E. F. (1932). The free negro family: A study of family origins before the civil war. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Gilovich, T. (1993). How we know what Isn’t so: Fallibility of human reason in everyday life. New
York: Free Press.
Glaser, B. (1992). Emergence vs. Forcing: Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley:
Sociology Press.

86

3

Methodology

Glaser, B. G. (2002). Constructivist grounded theory? Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum:
Qualitative Social Research, 3(3), Art. 12.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
Gosnell, H. F. (1927). Getting out the vote: An experiment in the stimulation of voting. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Greenwood, G., & Robertson, K. (2000). Understanding and responding to drug use: The role of
qualitative research (EMCDDA scientific monograph series, Vol. 4). Luxembourg: Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities.
Grund, J.-P. C. (1993). Drug use as a social ritual: Functionality, symbolism and determinants of
self-regulation. Rotterdam: IVO Reeks.
ISD Scotland. (1999–2009). Drug misuse statistics Scotland. Edinburgh: ISD.
Jahoda, G. (1992). Crossroads between culture and mind. Continuities and change in theories of
human nature. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Jungaberle, H. (2007). Qualitative Drogen- und Suchtforschung—am Beispiel eines kulturpsychologischen Forschungsprojekts. In B. Dollinger & H. Schmidt-Semisch (Eds.),
Sozialwissenschaftliche Suchtforschung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Kelle, U. (2005a). Sociological explanations between micro and macro and the integration of
qualitative and quantitative methods. Historical Social Research, 30(1), 95–117.
Kelle, U. (2005b). “Emergence” vs. “Forcing” of empirical data? A crucial problem of “Grounded
Theory” reconsidered. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research,
6(2), Art. 27.
Kelle, U., Kluge, S., & Prein, G. (1993). Strategien der Geltungssicherung in der qualitativen
Sozialforschung. Zur Validitätsproblematik im interpretativen Paradigma. Arbeitspapier Nr.
24. Bremen: Sonderforschungsbereich 186.
Klockars, C. B. (1977). Field ethics for the life history. In R. S. Weppner (Ed.), Street ethnography.
Beverly Hills: Sage.
Knoblauch, H. (2005). Wissenssoziologie. Konstanz: UVK/UTB.
Knoblauch, H., & Schnettler, B. (2007). Konstruktivismus. In R. Buber & H. H. Holzmüller (Eds.),
Qualitative Marktforschung Konzepte, Methoden, Analysen. Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Kulturpsychologie: Kulturbegriff und kulturbezogenes Denken in der Psychologie. In Das
Psychologie lexikon. Retrieved July 11, 2009, from http://www.psychology48.com/deu/d/
kulturpsychologie/kulturpsychologie.htm.
Lambert, E. Y., & Wiebel, W. W. (1990). Introduction. In E. Y. Lambert (Ed.), The collection and
interpretation of data form hidden populations (NIDA research monograph, Vol. 98, pp. 1–14).
Rockville: NIDA.
Lamnek, S. (2005). Qualitative Sozialforschung. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz Verlag.
Legewie, H. (2006). Rezension: Jörg Strübing (2004). Grounded Theory. Zur sozialtheoretischen
und epistemologischen Fundierung des Verfahrens der empirisch begründeten Theoriebildung.
Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(2). Art. 1.
Malinowski, B. (1913). The family among the Australian Aborigines: A sociological study. London:
University of London Press.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,
and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
Mayhew, S., Collumbien, M., Qureshi, A., Platt, L., Rafiq, N., Faisel, N., Lalji, N., & Hawkes, S.
(2009). Protecting the unprotected: mixed-method research on drug use, sex work and rights in
Pakistan’s fight against HIV/AIDS. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 85(2), 31–36.
Mayring, P. (1990). Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung. München: Beltz.
Mead, G. H. (1956). The social psychology of George Herbert Mead. Edited with an introduction
by Anselm Strauss. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mey, G. (2000). Qualitative research and the analysis of processes. Considerations towards a
“Qualitative Developmental Psychology”. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum:
Qualitative Social Research, 1(1), Art. 10.

References

87

Mey, G., & Mruck, K. (Eds.). (2005). Qualitative Sozialforschung – Methodologische Reflexionen
und disziplinäre Anwendungen. Ausgewählte Aufsätze aus dem Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung [Qualitative social research – Methodological reflections and disciplinary
applications]. Selected contributions from the forum qualitative social research. [Contributions
by Paul ten Have, Udo Kelle, Jo Reichertz]. Sonderband des Historical Social Research/
Historische Sozialforschung, 30(1).
Muckel, P. (2007). Die Entwicklung von Kategorien mit der Methode der Grounded Theory. In. G.
Mey & K. Mruck (Eds.), Grounded Theory Reader. HSR-Beiheft 19, (pp. 211–231). Köln:
Zentrum für Historische Sozialforschung.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.
Peirce, C. S. (1991). Deduktion, Induktion und Hypothese. In C. S. Peirce & K.-O. Apel (Eds.),
Schriften zum Pragmatismus und Pragmatizismus (pp. 229–250). Frankfurt a.M: Suhrkamp.
Pfadenhauer, M. (2005). Ethnography of scenes. Towards a sociological life-world analysis of
(Post-traditional) community-building. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative
Social Research, 6(3), Art. 43.
Popper, K. R., & Adorno, T. W. (1962). Die Logik der Sozialwissenschaften. In KZfSS 14, Heft 2.
Ragin, C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative methods.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rhodes, T., & Cusick, L. (1997). Profile of qualitative research in the UK. In J. Fountain
& P. Griffiths (Eds.), EMCDDA: Inventory, bibliography and synthesis of qualitative research
in the European Union. London/Lisbon: NAC/EMCDDA (Vol. 1, Section 2).
Richardson, J. B. E. (Ed.). (1996). Handbook of qualitative research for psychology and social
sciences. Leicester: British Psychological Association.
Rodner, S. (2005). I am not a drug abuser, I am a drug user’: A discourse analysis of 44 drug users’
construction of identity. Addiction Research & Theory 2005, 13(4), 333–346.
Schütz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world. Chicago: Northwestern University
Press (first published 1932).
Shakib, S., Nichter, M., Quintero, G., Nichter, M., & Mock, J. (2004). Qualitative research:
Contributions to the study of drug use, drug abuse, and drug use(r)-related interventions.
Substance Use & Misuse, 39(10–12), 1907–1969.
Shweder, R. A. (1990). Cultural psychology—What is it? In G. J. Stigler, R. A. Shweder,
& G. H. Herdt (Eds.), Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development
(pp. 1–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shweder, R. (1991). Does the concept of person vary cross-culturally? Thinking through culture.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative analysis. London: Sage.
Sloman, S. A., & Lagnado, D. A. (2005). The problem of induction. In K. J. Holyoak
& R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 95–116).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stallwitz, A. (2007). Heroin use in Shetland from the perspective of different local professionals.
Therapeutic Communities, 28(3), 256–272.
Stallwitz, A., & Shewan, D. (2004). A qualitative exploration of the impact of cultural and social
factors on heroin use in Shetland (Scotland). Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 36(3).
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects:
Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-1939. Social
Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.
Straub, J. (1998). Handlung, Interpretation, Kritik. Grundzüge einer interpretativen Handlungsund Kulturpsychologie. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Strauss, A. (1993). Continual permutations of action. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Newbury Park/London/New Delhi: Sage.

88

3

Methodology

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory overview. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. London: Sage.
Strübing, J. (2004). Grounded Theory: Zur sozialtheoretischen und epistemologischen Fundierung
des Verfahrens der empirisch begründeten Theoriebildung (QSf 15). Wiesbaden: Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative
approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to qualitative research methodology: A guidebook
and resource. Toronto: Wiley.
Thrasher, Frederick. (1927). The gang. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
UCSF Foundation. (2009). Anselm strauss. Retrieved June 20, 2009, from http://sbs.ucsf.edu/
medsoc/anselmstrauss/
University of Sheffield. (2009). The qualitative paradigm. Retrieved June 2, 2009. http://www.
computing.dcu.ie/~hruskin/RM2.htm
Wolf, B., & Priebe, M. (2000). Quantitative und Qualitative Sozialforschung. In Wissenschaftstheoretische Richtungen. Landau: VEP. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www.ezw.rwth-aachen.
de/ fi leadmin/user_upload/Schulpaeda/Vorlesung/2007/Quantitative_und_Qualitative_
Sozialforschung.pdf
Yu, C. H. (1994). Abduction? Deduction? Induction? Is there a logic of exploratory data analysis?
Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, Louisiana, April, 1994.

Part II

The Shetland Heroin Scene:
Location-Specific Characteristics
and Historical Evolution

Chapter 4

Introduction to Part II

When interviewed about their experiences and perceptions regarding the nature of
the Shetland heroin scene, participants convey diverse perspectives. Many point out
the location-specific particulars and peculiarities of the subculture, which they often
contrast with what they generally understood as a ‘typical heroin scene on the urban
mainland of Britain’. Besides this kind of cross-cultural comparison, interviewees
provide historical points of view on the developments of the Shetland heroin scene.
Interview accounts suggest five different stages the scene has passed through until
the present day, which are exemplified with the intention of illustrating and defining
its present character.

4.1

Participant Perspectives and Reality Understanding

The ways the Shetland heroin scene is represented in its current, past, and ‘comparative’ states also embrace and reflect the specific viewpoints of various social
groups as well as individuals. Individual perspectives are largely influenced by the
interviewees’ respective personal experiences, such as their level of heroin use and
of active or passive involvement in the subculture. The degree of scene involvement
tends to be greater amongst clients than non-clients, as the latter also embrace
occasional users, who use heroin on a recreational, infrequent basis. Consequently,
certain perceptions given in the interviews are broadly shared, while others are
shared by small percentages of the interview sample. Those themes that either
repeatedly occur in different or many interviews or seem to have a specifically
expressive and significant meaning for the research question have been selected for
further analysis and are presented and discussed in the subsequent report. In the
following section, they are portrayed and incorporated in both their consistencies
and inconsistencies to convey as comprehensive a representation of the scene as
possible, without, however, claiming to be complete. Tying on the epistemological
considerations regarding the social-constructivist reality conception of this study
A. Stallwitz, The Role of Community-Mindedness in the Self-Regulation of Drug
Cultures: A Case Study from the Shetland Islands, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3861-4_4,
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

91

92

4

Introduction to Part II

outlined in the methodology chapter, it should be emphasised again that the interview
representations constitute individually and socially constructed realities resting
upon subjective perceptions, rather than absolute realities.
As elucidated in the preceding methodology chapter, the transformation of the
raw interview data to its analysed, interpreted representation has been assisted
by the cooperation with several research groups and the experts in the field of qualitative social research. Nonetheless, all analytic and interpretative processes
ultimately reflect the subjective perspectives of the author. Empirical social science
work, whether quantitative or qualitative, always carries the subjective note of the
researcher/s. Therefore, the following illustration of the Shetland heroin scene and
its historical progression constitutes only one possible vantage point on the research
phenomenon. A certain linguistic style exemplifies the constructivist nature of
the reality understanding employed in this work: Expressions such as ‘it seems’ or
‘appears’, ‘apparently’, ‘seemingly’, ‘ostensibly’, and ‘presumably’ indicate that no
objective truth is attempted to be conveyed, but inferences on the basis of an
analytic, interpretative selection of interview extracts from the viewpoint of the
author. When at time no obvious linguistic indicator is applied, the relative reality
concept nonetheless persists. In grounded theory, all information utilised in a
research project is regarded as data including the original research data as well as
information from technical and other literature as well as alternative sources (Strauss
and Corbin 1998). Thus, this also applies to the present study and the diverse types
of information sources employed.

4.2

Overview of Part II

The analysis of the rich and dense interview material permits a comprehensive and
thorough in-depth insight into the general substance using culture and in particular
the heroin scene on the Shetland Islands. Interviewees describe and explicate the
multi-sided, versatile character and developments of the local heroin subculture in
often analytically sophisticated ways.
First, a comparatively brief snapshot of the overall substance using culture in
Shetland, including the general drug scene, is supplied. Thus, a context is provided
in which the heroin scene is embedded. Subsequently, the descriptive features of the
heroin scene with its complex, hypothetically observable, quantifiable characteristics
are presented and described. Following this, the internal structure of the scene with
the intricate organisation of its diverse sub-scenes, groups, and individual users is
illustrated. Afterwards, the historical developments and alterations of the scene and
its descriptive and internal features from the beginnings in the mid- or late 1970s
until the point in time of the data collection in the spring and early summer of 2004
are depicted and explained. Five distinct historical eras are delineated, which is
followed by the depiction of the heroin using trend at the time of the interviews and
its possible future course. Then, the role of community-mindedness, which throughout
the analysis has proven to be crucially involved in determining the scene’s character

4.2 Overview of Part II

93

at a time, in the five historical stages is examined. Part II closes with a summary of
the most essential aspects presented in this division.
In order to protect interviewees’ anonymity, all names have been changed.
Whenever interview citations contain information that bears the potential to reveal
this specific participant’s or someone else’s identity, this information is excluded.
Besides, neither the respective participant’s pseudonym nor any further information
on the person in question is. In most cases this is stated explicitly.
With respect to the style of referencing, the presented interview extracts,
the page, and the line number references of the original interview transcripts are
provided. Unintelligible words are indicated by [xxx]. Appendix 2 provides a glossary of Shetland, Scottish, and British dialects and slang expressions participants
had used during interviews.

Reference
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. London: Sage.

Chapter 5

Shetland and Substance Use

5.1

The Alcohol Culture

As already mentioned in the introductory paragraph of Part II, amongst the spontaneous
associations people might have when imagining Shetland are a ‘Viking mentality’
and a culture of pronounced alcohol consumption. Such associations conform to
interviewees’ accounts of the quite central role alcohol plays in Shetland’s overall
culture, especially its social life. Not to drink when coming together to celebrate,
party, or socialise might even receive collective disapproval, as drinking to an extreme
state of drunkenness constitutes a widely accepted, common phenomenon.1
Apart from social and general recreational contexts, interviewees recurrently
point out that alcohol consumption is also commonly used as a coping strategy in
order to ‘wash down’ unpleasant and unhappy feelings or experiences. One occasional heroin user suggests a Shetland-inherent predisposition to substance abuse,
manifested in the form of widespread and excessive drinking throughout the island’s
entire population. He asserts that the substance-using problem of the island refers in
the first place to alcohol rather than any illicit drug. However, he presumes that this
inclination to extreme consumption of alcohol might shift towards heroin or any
other drug. Consequently, he concludes that Shetland’s currently high levels of
alcohol use and dependence may gradually transform into high levels of heroin use
and dependence.
Oliver (O): […] Jus’ too much drinkin’ goes on. People are that drunk the whole time, you
don’t notice wha’ else is goin’ on underneath their noses, you know? In Lerwick or in
Shetland.

1
Shetland’s inclination to heavy social drinking has been attested to by many writers and journalists.
A vivid example of the island’s readiness to drink and party ‘hard’ has been provided by a local
woman when declaring, ‘Shetland is the only place where people unconscious have been carried
into a pub and bought a pint’ (Stallwitz 2001, p.17).

A. Stallwitz, The Role of Community-Mindedness in the Self-Regulation of Drug
Cultures: A Case Study from the Shetland Islands, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3861-4_5,
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

95

96

5

Shetland and Substance Use

R: How do you mean?
Oliver: Well, drink is the real problem up here. Alcohol, you know. It’s not it’s not
heroin or any other drug, ’s alcohol. An’ maybe there’s a, there’s a natural sor’ o’ propensity in Shetland for drug abuse. Just for a long long time i’ was alcohol, you know?
For like decades an’ decades. An’ now maybe the same people 30 years ago, the people
who are like maybe usin’ a lotta heroin now or coke or whatever, 30 years ago they’d
been drinkin’ a lotta alcohol, you know? Jus’ different generation, jus’, the same, basically the same genetic … information goin’ thru’ the people, jus’ different drugs for
different different times. I dunno. You know, what I mean? There’s a huge alcohol problem in Shetland, so it’s not surprisin’ that there will quite soon, I think, be a huge heroin
problem. [8, 36–9, 5]

Overall, interviewees articulate very similar accounts with respect to the Shetland
culture of alcohol use. According to participants, excessive drinking constitutes a
broadly accepted phenomenon commonly occurring both in private and public.
Alcohol abstinence, in contrast, tends to be treated as almost socially deviant, especially
within the general pub and party scene. The frequently excessive and extensive
consumption of alcohol seems to refer to the population at large, more or less regardless
of gender, age, and social background.

5.2
5.2.1

The Overall Drug Scene
Historical Roots

Whereas interviewed heroin users portray alcohol consumption as more or less
always having constituted a part of the Shetland culture, they describe the establishment of the illegal drug culture to be rooted in the mid to late 1970s. The beginnings
of the drug scene are typically represented as an accompaniment to the ‘oil boom’
that started with the commissioning of Sullom Voe, the biggest European oil port in
the north part of the island. With an apparently massive influx of oil workers from
the often urban, British mainland, the drug scene is stated to have virtually ‘exploded’
as, for example, outlined by the occasional user Oliver.
Oliver (O): There were a lot o’ workers at Sullom Voe. 1000 s or 100 s of people came up
here to work. So, the the drug scene just … exploded, you now. At, well, well, that time ’78,
’79, ’80, things like that. [3, 3–6]

Recreational drugs, such as cannabis, amphetamines, psychedelic drugs, and to
a lesser extent cocaine and heroin, became available, however, solely to restricted
and intermittent degrees and never to extents comparable to urban Britain. In
particular, heroin was seemingly attributed the status of a highly exclusive good,
accessible only to a very limited group of select and ‘responsible users’. Interview
accounts suggest this condition to basically have continued for nearly two decades
[Oliver, O, 2, 40–49].

5.2

The Overall Drug Scene

5.2.2

97

Nature and Mentality

Interviewees time and again point out that with respect to drug use, including
general supply and purchase attitudes, the situation in Shetland differs significantly
from urban Britain. The Shetland man Ben (N), who describes phases of personal
regular and partly heavy drug use, portrays Shetlanders as generally acting in a
thoughtful, ‘controlled’ manner and in correspondence with relatively high moral
standards. According to his and others’ explanations, drug-related debts are commonly handled with patience, bordering on politeness, rather than violence and
threats. According to Ben, in Shetland as opposed to urban areas, drug users are not
pressurised into criminal conduct by tough-minded dealers or suppliers demanding
immediate payment of drug debts. Overall, Ben sees Shetland as largely being
spared from most forms of criminal conduct, which he explains in terms of the
island-specific more communally and socially oriented mentality and the generally
slower pace.
Ben (N): […] Nobody’s bad really. Nobody steals, nobody, you know? There’s no violence.
That’s the main thing about Shetland when i’ comes to the drugs, in Shetland, compared to
the mainland. The BIGGEST BIGGEST difference is that there’s no violence. Up here
people are controlled. If you owe somebody money you owe the money. You’ll ge’ it once
they’ve go’ it. It’s no’ a case of ‘I want it right now!’, which forces people into crime to ge’
the money. Or they’re gonna ge’ stabbed or shot. I mean, I’ve seen i’, I’ve been on the
mainland an’ witnessed things, I’ve been in jail, I witnessed things. I mean, it’s different, on
an island. Speed in a way. There’s no violence, that’s brilliant. There’s no rape, there’s no
murder, there’s no gangs in Shetland. That’s good. [11, 31–44]

Ben’s statement reflects the perceptions and opinions of most participants, as
communicated in their interviews [e.g. Christian, O, 1, 10–17; Gerry, C, 13,
37–42; Mona, C, 7, 25].

5.2.3

Male/Female Ratio

Interviewees report pronounced differences regarding the male/female distribution
amongst drug users. Many interviewees suggest an equal trend with respect to the
use of alcohol, ecstasy, and cannabis, while the use of other drugs tends to be presented as male-dominated. The occasional heroin user Christian suggests that both
speed and heroin are used by significantly more men than women [16, 27–31]. Still,
the Shetland woman Claire (C), points out that ‘there are women that deal speed
and that’ [6, 9–10]. Time and again, participants emphasise that they can guess,
exclusively on the basis of the drug users they socialise with or know of, which is
likely to result in biases. Since more men were interviewed than women, the general
assumption that there are a greater number of male drug users might be intensified
by the male over-representation within the interview sample. Hence, no substantiated,

98

5

Shetland and Substance Use

clear conclusions are possible. Nonetheless, the sum of the relevant interview
accounts suggests an overall greater proportion of men actively involved in the trade
and purchase of illegal drugs. With respect to drug consumption though, gender
shares might be similar concerning party drugs, whereas a greater proportion of
men use heroin specifically and other Class A drugs excluding ecstasy. The term
‘party drugs’, as used by participants, typically includes MDMA (ecstasy), MDA
and amphetamines (speed), and sometimes cannabis.

5.2.4

Availability and Spread of Drugs Inside
and Outside Lerwick

On the whole, participants agree that recreational drugs such as cannabis, amphetamines, and ecstasy can frequently be obtained in Shetland without much effort.
Nonetheless, interviewees also state phases of droughts when certain drugs, predominantly cannabis, cocaine, and heroin, are temporarily unavailable on Shetland’s
drug market. According to interviewees’ accounts, the centre of the drug market
is based in the capital Lerwick. In the countryside and remote areas, drugs are
generally affirmed to be considerably harder to obtain.
In the context of accessing illicit drugs, a certain privilege hierarchy has been
described: People belonging to the in-group,2 primarily dealers and their immediate
social circle, can even during periods of general scarcity still have access to particular
drugs. To a certain degree, such privileged people appear to be relatively unaffected
by the recurrent droughts and the then extremely restricted availability. One longterm user, from the urban mainland, explains that in the village in northern Shetland
they lived in a few years ago, cannabis was easily purchasable, amphetamines – on

2

According to McCallion in the Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Sociology ‘an in-group is a social
unit an individual belongs to, interacts with, and shares a sense of “we-ness” with (2007). An outgroup, on the other hand, is a social unit or group of people that an individual neither belongs to
nor identifies with. The construction and maintenance of boundaries (physical or symbolic) are the
primary ways by which groups establish what it means to be “in” and, by contrast, what it means
to be “out”. The basis of in-group identity is socially constructed through symbolic markers
(boundaries) such as narratives, creeds, rituals, and social practices. Such boundaries can be seen
along a continuum of permeability (open) and impermeability (closed), which influences group
member entrance and exit processes. In-group identity, in other words, is always an ongoing
achievement in which group boundaries are collectively generated, affirmed, maintained, and
employed to mark differences between insiders and outsiders (Hadden and Lester 1978). In his
classic study of folkways, William Graham Sumner (1906) articulates the enduring notions of ingroups and out-groups and the dialectical relation between them. Sumner stresses the negative
reciprocity between in-groups and out-groups, especially in the context of conflict over scarce
resources. In an environment of scarcity, Sumner argues, individuals need to band together to
compete with other groups’, a situation given with regard to the availability of heroin in Shetland.

5.2

The Overall Drug Scene

99

the other hand – were accessible only to the preferred, privileged people, and heroin
could virtually not be bought locally [N, 13, 4–14]. The Shetlander Angus (N), who
reports many years of experience with polydrug use in Shetland, as well as various
British cities, emphasises the fundamental inferiority in drug availability and variety
on the island compared to urban Britain. Consequently, Shetland drug users often do
not have the same options to combine drugs or to take drug cocktails. Therefore,
specifically hazardous patterns of mixed drug use might be less prominent in
Shetland than in city and town areas with little restrictions on drug availability
[Angus, N, 1, 47–2, 13]. Nonetheless, cocktails, such as heroin/cocaine mixtures,
are stated to be consumed in Shetland. The Shetlander James, for example, affirms
that intravenous heroin/cocaine cocktails represent his favourite style of drug use
[James, N, 1, 20–21].
Despite the regularly occurring droughts of various illicit substances, Angus
presents the weekends typically as times of drug abundance in Lerwick’s pubs and
party scene, during which he is frequently offered MDMA tablets for free.
Angus: […] I’ll come an’ i’ll go, ken – that’s wha’ happens in Shetland. It’s always been
like that, no matter whether it’s hash or, it’s always been basically the same sor’ o’ thing.
There are probably more drugs now as there’s ever been. I would say. For the size o’ the
place there’s quite a lo’ o’ drugs tha’ goes on like.
R: What about the other drugs? Like
Angus: Yah, it’s, yah, I mean, yah, I mean, if I go out the weekends everyone is out o’ their
face on ecstasy like. Ken? Ah, there’s plenty o’ every, there’s plenty, there’s plenty o’ drugs.
There seems to be a constant supply wi’ ecstasy an’ things like that. There’s always a constant supply o’ speed an’ that. I mean, tha’ never ever seems to run out.
R: Like in the pubs?
Angus: Yeah. Well, yah. Certainly the weekends anyway. There’s always like ecstasy.
I mean, if I go out I usually ge’ given ecstasy, ken? I never usually have to buy i’. There’s
always plenty o’ ecstasy on the go. It seems tha’ it’s always been like tha’ for a long time.
It’s very rare tha’ you go out an’ there’s not much ecstasy on the go. There always seem to
be plenty of tha’. Plenty o’ speed, plenty o’ hash. [13, 18–42]

The Shetland woman Mona (N) also asserts that on weekends ‘party drugs’,
such as ecstasy, cannabis, and speed, which she refers to as ‘Shetland drugs’, are
offered by numerous different suppliers in several Lerwick pubs [2, 4–5].
5.2.4.1

Availability and Use of Specific Drugs

Cannabis
According to several interviewed users, after alcohol, cannabis constitutes the most
widely and extensively consumed illicit substance in Shetland. Still, its availability
is reported to be regularly interrupted. Moreover, the variety of cannabis types
available on the drug market seems to be limited predominantly to the common
resin, with grass, especially skunk (particularly strong grass) and less usual kinds of
resin, such as ‘Green Lebanese’, ‘Black Afghan’, or ‘Red Moroccan’ rarely or never
being on offer [Ben, N, 3, 29–37].

100

5

Shetland and Substance Use

Crack/Cocaine
All participants who speak about crack in Shetland agree that the drug has hitherto
never generally been on offer and with great probability never will be [e.g. Gordon,
13, 14–24]. According to different accounts, the relatively small number of people
who have tried crack have either personally organised the stimulant from Aberdeen,
prepared it themselves, or benefited from the privilege of being socially close to a
dealer and being provided with ‘non-commercial’ crack on one or several occasions. Apparently, the quality of the available cocaine is too poor and the majority
of users lack sufficient professional knowledge to prepare potent crack [Rick, C, 3,
35–4, 35; Patrick, C, 5, 22–25; Oscar, C, 5, 36–38]. Furthermore, it has been suggested that drug suppliers avoid introducing crack to Shetland on a commercial
basis, since the drug and its extreme, stimulating but short-lasting, and often psychologically and physically destructive effects, would disturb the island’s slow pace
and communal, social infrastructure. Such a disturbance might lead to an increase
in drug-related crime that neither the community nor the police would accept nor
would a dealer want to assume any responsibility in this context [Robin, C, 4, 11–5,
7; Gordon, 13, 14–24]. Several interviewees emphasise that no explicit demand for
crack hitherto exists on the island, but if there was a sufficiently pronounced demand,
a market might well develop [Rick, 3, 35 - 4, 35; Ben, 15, 19–25; Oliver, O, 4,
34–44].
Cocaine, in contrast to crack, seems to enjoy a relative popularity especially in
certain circles; hence, considerable amounts of cocaine are available intermittently
[Rick, C, 3, 48–49; 1, Gerry, C, 50–2, 1]. As hinted at above, consumers predominantly include people in higher positions, though typical partygoers and others also
consume. Corresponding to the Shetland man Angus (N), people consuming cocaine
commonly build exclusive cliques and avoid contact with heroin users whom they
tend to look down on [2, 7–13]. With respect to the availability of cocaine in
Shetland, its recurrent scarcity has already been pointed out.

Benzodiazepines
With less frequency than the previously presented substances, interviewees speak
about ‘benzos’, in other words benzodiazepines, sold and purchased on the black
market. With their sedating effect, benzodiazepines are not used at party events in
the way that stimulants, such as crack, ecstasy, and amphetamines, are. The longterm user Gerry (C), who first encountered benzos in urban contexts more than a
decade before the interview, explains that when heroin became widely available in
Shetland around 2000, benzodiazepines also began to appear on the black market.
According to his account, this drug has mainly been used by heroin users as an
enhancer of the opiate effects or by partygoers to ‘come down’ from ecstasy and
speed after a party occasion. He also states that the drug has become rather rare and
difficult to obtain in Shetland, which he believes has driven its price up. He argues
that since benzos are generally associated with heroin use and its stigmatised social

5.2

The Overall Drug Scene

101

status, few dealers are willing to engage in the supply of the branded substance [10,
22–11, 27]. Near the turn of the millennium, a small number of people might have
been involved in dealing tranquilisers, which after a period of activity seems to have
ended. Consequently, the drug has become difficult to obtain. The occasional user
Christian (O), on the other hand, believes that the black market for prescription
drugs, such as benzodiazepines and methadone, still exists [1, 36–40]. These contrasting views could be synthesised in Patrick’s assertion, which states that prescription drugs are generally becoming more and more difficult to purchase on the
black market, since demand has increased considerably [4, 51–5, 4].

5.2.4.2

Acceptability of Drugs and Drug Use

In correspondence with the statements of many interviewees, party drugs are consumed, often excessively and extensively, by a great number of Shetlanders from a
wide range of socio-economic backgrounds. One user in his early 30s believes that
nearly everybody in his age group consumes recreational drugs, whereas compared
to the vast number of party drug users, only a small proportion of the Shetland
population uses heroin [Ben, N, 5, 49–6, 9]. This phenomenon might partly be
explicable in terms of the widespread acceptance of party drugs throughout large
parts of the island community, whereas heroin is still commonly regarded as unacceptable, bad, or even evil [e.g. Christian, O, 22, 23; Hannah, C, 19, 17–20].
Christian (O): […], whereas in Shetland most people would accept the fact that young
people would take Es the weekend an’ things like that. [23, 1–3]

Party drugs seem to enjoy a relatively accepted status amongst a large share of
the younger and middle-aged Lerwick generations. However, the public knowledge of personal heroin use has repeatedly been portrayed as a serious threat to
employed users’ jobs, which causes most heroin-using employees to handle their
use with extreme caution and secrecy. In contrast, relatively open or even communal
party drug use on a work night out does, according to some participants, not seem
to be exceptional [e.g. Angus, 17, 8–13]. Heroin use and especially intravenous
heroin use has been emphasised to be frowned upon, not only with reference to the
general public but also the average party drug user. The contemptuous attitude of
stimulant consumers towards ‘skag’ users and especially injectors has been associated with the clearly perceptible divide between the party drugs and the heroin
scene [Rick, (C), 4, 26–35; Gordon, C, 6, 45–46]. With regard to places and areas
outside Lerwick, users report the use of drugs in general and heroin in particular to
be significantly more stigmatised, which again is intensified in the older
generations.
The widespread acceptability of party drugs throughout considerable parts of the
Shetland population appears to be reflected in their easy accessibility. In contrast to
cannabis, heroin, and cocaine, which appear to be particularly affected by the regular phases of unavailability, ecstasy and amphetamines are reported to be often
freely and widely available, with a considerably increased supply from Fridays to

102

5

Shetland and Substance Use

Sundays [Angus, N, 18, 48–50; Ben, N, 5, 49 - 6, 6]. This rise might be explicable
in view of the fact that many Shetlanders concentrate their party drug use on the
weekends. The availability of cocaine has even been suggested to be exclusively
limited to weekends, when most users, including employees in higher positions
[Rick, C, 4, 2–5], tend to engage in the use of the comparatively expensive stimulant
[Angus, 14, 4–24].

5.2.5

Quality and Prices

Due to its island location, the possibilities to purchase drugs are clearly restricted in
Shetland and the majority of users depend on the local drug market and its suppliers.
Since alternative drug markets are at least 12 ferry hours from Lerwick and can thus
not readily be accessed from the island, Shetland dealers, who appear to be predominantly located and active in Lerwick, enjoy a relative drugs trade monopoly.
Participants explain that dealers take advantage of Shetland’s geographical isolation
and frequently adulterate drugs they intend to sell with cheaper cutting agents in
order to increase profits. Additionally, illicit drugs tend to be sold at significantly
higher prices, thus further boosting the financial gains [e.g. Helen, 1, 18–23]. These
conditions apply above all to substances of usually restricted availability and exclusive consumer groups, such as heroin and cocaine, which tend to be almost twice as
expensive as on the urban mainland [Robin, C, 4, 4; Oliver, O, 8, 52–9, 2; Isaac,
O, 14, 33–40]. The prices of cannabis products are generally affirmed to be somewhat more costly than in British cities. As a result of the widespread demand for
cannabis and its in recent times extremely limited accessibility, the prices for this
drug are affirmed to have increased significantly [Christian, O, 5, 28–31; James,
N, 1, 45]. The same is said to be true with respect to benzodiazepines [Gerry, C,
11, 23–26].

5.2.6

Excessiveness

At the beginning of this section, the occasional heroin user Oliver is quoted in the
context of pronounced and excessive alcohol use. In Shetland, excessiveness does
not seem to be restricted to the consumption of alcohol but has been described to
come into play with respect to any substance. The prevalence of the extreme and
extensive use of ecstasy, amphetamines, and cannabis for about a decade has
frequently been reported by many interviewed users. With respect to heroin, by
contrast, this style of use has apparently only recently been adopted. The interview
accounts provided in the context of excessive substance use tend to be of a particularly original, expressive, and vivid nature. Therefore, a greater number of citations
than usually given will be presented in the following.

5.2

The Overall Drug Scene

103

The client Rick, who has used heroin as well as a wide variety of other drugs for
more than a decade, gives a vibrant account of excessive substance use tendencies
in Shetland, which in his opinion are rooted in the patterns of extreme alcohol use
that have been common on the island for a long time.
Rick (C): […] Nothin’ like this surprises me up here anymaer like.
R: What d’you mean?
Rick: Oh, it’s just, ken, this island’s capable o’ anythin’ [laughs a bit], just aboot. An’ every
excessive peak is [xxx] It’s just, it’s a mad place.
R: How you mean?
Rick: Just just the excesses in Shetlanders: An’ Shetlanders don’t simply know what moderation is. An’ a Shetlander needs to look it up in the dictionary an’ go to bloody night
classes an’ learn wha’ all i’ means. [laughs]
R: Would you say that that applies to the way people use heroin up here as well?
Rick: Well, I think the way people use all drugs up here is directly reflected tae the way
alcohol’s been used, ken? For centuries or wha’ever how lang, ken? Be a lang time. An’
because, ken, relatives, ken, are havin’, people are havin’ relatives tha’ are excessive in this
an’ tha’ an’, ken, yeah, people do tend to take things to a peak. An’ then they crash or
wha’ver. […] [2, 22–42]

At a later stage in the interview, Rick affirms the long-standing existence of a
sizeable speed scene that probably dates back to the origins of the Shetland drug
scene around the time of the commissioning of the oil terminal Sullom Voe and the
associated influx of workers. He speaks about a large number of Shetlanders who
tend to use amphetamines in order to be able to party longer, stay up later, and drink
greater amounts of alcohol. He also argues that older people use speed to counterbalance the age-related reduction of their drinking and partying stamina.
Rick: […] And also it’s used because people are gettin’ older an’ they’re gettin’ maer unfit
an’ they cannae drink as they used to when they were 21 or wha’ever. So they snort a gram
a’ speed durin’ the night’s drinkin’ an’ spend twice as much bloody money because you can
drink 12 pints once you’re on speed. An’ then sober up completely an’ drink another 12
pints, ken, which you’d never done withoot the speed. Bu’ for some reason people for a long
time, just want to stay up, ken, wantae party longer at the weekend an’ stay up. Mostly i’ is
pretty recreational. […] [4, 13–22]

Underlining this account with a personal example, Angus explains that he ‘just
went mad for every drug’ he has hitherto tried, and regards himself as having been
a ‘major speed freak’ for numerous years, but once he took heroin, he preferred it to
all other drugs and has stayed with it since [4, 10–15].
Below, the young Shetland woman Cathy (C) expresses her astonishment regarding
the fact that in the most extreme times she and her drug-using clique went through,
no one of the group died of an overdose. To exemplify the style of use common in
this excessive period, she describes how she once injected 14 ecstasy tablets in
one session.
Cathy (C): The most I injected is 14 Es. It was crazy times.
R: How do you mean? In which way?
Cathy: Just crazy the amounts o’ drugs we were takin’! I can’t believe we never died.
R: Like?
Cathy: Well, injectin’ 14 Es.
R: In one night?

104

5

Shetland and Substance Use

Cathy: No. In one hi’.
R: In one hit??! […] And how did you feel after these 14 Es?
Cathy: Alright. Woken up a bit. [2, 14–31]

The general Shetland tendency to go to extremes with respect to substance use is
confirmed principally by the whole interview sample. The use of alcohol seems to
have been embedded in this tradition of excess for a long time, while expansion to
recreational and party drugs is reported to have taken place about a decade ago. The
inclusion of heroin in the common style of excessive drug consumption appears to
have occurred only relatively recently.

5.2.7

Intravenous Use

According to many interviewed users, injecting as a route of administration has
until recently played a minor role for the majority of Shetland drug users. This
appears to have changed a few years ago, again – similar to the increase in illegal
benzodiazepine supply and use – round about the turn of the millennium. The
Shetlander Philip (N) describes a close connection between the general rise in the
use of illegal drugs including ecstasy, speed, heroin, and cocaine that he has observed
over the past years and the increase in injecting. He expresses apprehension regarding these problematic changes obviously fuelled by people ‘looking for a faster hit’
[14, 11–24]. Some participants even go as far as to assume that most drug users
inject nowadays [e.g. Oliver, O, 13, 44–46; Robin, C, 11, 49–50].
The occurrence of intravenous benzodiazepine use mainly in association with
intravenous heroin use has also been reported several times [e.g. Gerry, 10, 22–25].
However, this basis does not lend itself to substantiated conclusions regarding the
proportion of injecting compared to oral consumption. The client and long-term
user Helen (C) speaks about the enormous number of people nowadays injecting all
sorts of drugs including speed, cocaine, ecstasy, psychoactive pills, such as benzodiazepines, and heroin. She presents the intravenous use of ecstasy as a common
phenomenon in Shetland. She explains the underlying motivation in terms of the
relatively poor quality of available drugs. Furthermore, she mentions the Shetlandspecific tendency to try and experience every state of intoxication as immediately
and intensely as possible [3, 8–28]. Gerry (C), also a long-standing, predominantly
intravenous heroin user, gives a very similar account of intravenous drug use in
Shetland, whereby he expresses concern with respect to the health dangers of injecting ecstasy. In addition to Helen, he suggests the significantly increased number of
injecting drug users to be associated with a vastly increased number of heroin users
in recent years.
Gerry (C): […] The amount o’ people now [who use heroin], as I said, has probably led to
the amount o’ people tha’ are injectin’ speed an’ cocaine an’ ecstasy, things like tha’. Has
probably shot up over the past few years.
R: Yeeah, injecting ecstasy – that’s quite bizarre. That’s quite a, quite an unusual thing, but
I heard that a couple of times now.

5.2

The Overall Drug Scene

105

Gerry: Yeeaah, no, I wouldn’t fancy it myself. Certain pills, yeah, tha’ I think are
injectable. But I wouldn’t inject anythin’ other than kinna opiate pills. Bu’, yeah, I know
quite a lo’ o’ people, who, that’s how they take their ecstasy now – inject it. Ken, that’s
probably a lo’ to do with the quant-, quality an’ stuff – even compared to five years ago it’s
crap! [7, 7–21]

The conclusion from the interview analysis has been exemplified by the just
quoted citations of the male and the female participants with long-standing experience of heroin and drug use in Shetland: Injecting drug use appears to have undergone a considerable increase on the island in recent years. It has been guessed that
the number of people with the experience of injecting recreational drugs and/or
heroin and cocaine amounts to several hundred [Hannah, C, 9, 32–46 and 9,
51–10, 3]. The reasons are likely to be related to an interplay of mutually dependent aspects. Amongst other things, these include the often low potency of most
drugs that seems to have decreased particularly over the past years. Another factor
might be an overall increase in the acceptability of injecting as a route of administration amongst certain groups of drug users. Moreover, Helen’s description of a
widespread desire for an intense, powerful state of intoxication might indicate the
Shetland-specific tendency to use psychoactive substances in order to experience
extreme sensations.

5.2.8

Problematic Use

In relation to problematic drug use on the island, most interviewees give weight
primarily to the socio-economic situation in Shetland. Time and again, it is emphasised that the uniqueness of the drug scene in Shetland comprises the missing components of crime, deprivation, and overall socio-economic marginalisation that the
interviewed users generally associate with urban drug and in particular heroin
scenes. In the following, the typical urban heroin scene will recurrently be cited as
a frame of reference used by interviewees for the characterisation of the island
scene. Commonly, interviewees regard Shetland, with its wealth, relatively high living
standards, and generally low crime rates, as a contrasting example to inner-city drug
scenes [e.g. Christian, (O), 1, 8–16]. Still, the existence of problematic, that is,
physically and/or psychologically dependent or destructive drug use is repeatedly
referred to by different interviewees and has already been touched on several times
in the context of excessive and intravenous substance use. Along these lines, the
long-term drug and heroin user and injector Rick (C) gives the example of ‘serious
speed users’, referring to ‘people, who use it every day to go to work’ and ‘can’t go
to work unless they’ve had their speed’. According to his estimate, the number of
people using speed problematically and constantly ranges between 20 and 30
[4, 22–23]. The topic of worrying drug use will be illuminated again more thoroughly later on from a heroin-use-related perspective.

106

5

Shetland and Substance Use

References
Hadden, S. C., & Lester, M. (1978). Cited in: M. J. McCallion (2007). Social psychology. Sociology
of groups. In-groups and out-groups. In: Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology Online. Retrieved
December 12, 2007 from http://www.sociologyencyclopedia.com/public/
McCallion, M. J. (2007). Social psychology. Sociology of groups. In-groups and out-groups. In:
Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology online. Retrieved December 12, 2007 from http://www.
sociologyencyclopedia.com/public/
Stallwitz, A. (2001). An exploratory in depth investigation of the impact of cultural and social
factors on heroin use patterns in Shetland. Unpublished honours thesis, Glasgow Caledonian
University, Psychology Department.
Sumner, W. G. (1906). Cited in: M. J. McCallion (2007). Social psychology. Sociology of groups.
In-groups and out-groups. In: Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology online. Retrieved December
12, 2007 from http://www.sociologyencyclopedia.com/public/

Chapter 6

The Features and Descriptive Characteristics
of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

6.1

Introduction

In the preceding section, the overall character and features of the general drug
subculture in Shetland as portrayed by participants have been presented and discussed. Primarily, this chapter serves the function of providing a rough framework
for the following chapter. This will supply a comprehensive and thorough synthesis
of interviewees’ representations on the specificities of the Shetland heroin
scene’s features.

6.2

Noticeability of Heroin Use in Shetland

As a central reason why the notion of heroin use and a heroin scene in Shetland does
not tend to occur to foreigners and Shetlanders not involved in drug use, interviewees
present the fact that to a great extent heroin use and its associated consequences
are not obviously visible or noticeable. In contrast to the British urban mainland,
only a few individuals could be linked with heavy heroin use due to their poor
physical appearance and their actions. These include, for example, excessive thinness, paleness, drug purchasing and supplying activities, acquisitive crime, and
begging. Moreover, urban heroin users are often connected with evident poverty,
homelessness, and overall social deprivation. Such aspects are pointed out by the
majority of participants as being typical for scenes of heavy, habitual heroin users.
However, for the most part they do not apply to the Shetland situation, as explained
by, for example, the occasional user below. The circumstances and coherences of
these aspects receive further attention at a later stage.
Oliver (O): […] Also, it’s maybe less, ah, noticeable, because, it’s a slightly more affluent
society in Shetland, you know? There’s more money around. So there’s not so much obvious

A. Stallwitz, The Role of Community-Mindedness in the Self-Regulation of Drug
Cultures: A Case Study from the Shetland Islands, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3861-4_6,
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

107

108

6

The Features and Descriptive Characteristics of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

drug related crime. You know, people goin’, you know I mean, muggin’ people an’ stuff.
Get money for smack [heroin] an’ all. I suppose it happens sometimes. It’s not like i’ is in,
you know, Glasgow or some place or wherever, Dublin. Yeah. [5, 21–28]

The same interviewee adds to his previous explanations that the heroin subculture
in Shetland is of a less open and more hidden character than those on the British
mainland tend to be [Oliver, 8, 29–30].
Still, some participants state that within certain social circles, heroin might
appear in specific ‘semi-public settings’ such as parties [e.g. Joanna, C, 14, 31].
One occasional user also states that at parties of certain groups, he has been
offered heroin. Still, due to its pharmacologically sedating effect he views heroin as
being unsuitable for a celebration setting. With respect to the general social life of
the pub culture, he maintains that ‘certain dodgy’ pubs are regularly frequented by
people he associates with heroin use. The supply of the drug, however, he regards as
unlikely to take place on such a public basis [Christian, 19, 1–12].
On balance, interviewees’ accounts suggest that the Shetland heroin scene is
only conspicuous under specific circumstances, such as at particular parties. The
absence of an open scene and groups of physically affected people, as well as the
lack of obvious drug-related crime, would seem to point away from the existence of
a heroin subculture to someone uninvolved.

6.3

Size of the Scene

Apart from the lack of obvious, visible indicators of heroin use in Shetland, a number
of interviewees mention the small size of the scene, which also accounts for its
concealed nature. Not only compared to urban heroin scenes but also to the general
drug scene, some users state the Shetland heroin subculture to merely consist of a
small minority of users.
Ben (N): […] Bu’, um, the difference as well on the mainland is, from the island, especially
Shetland anyway, there’s a huge huge amount o’ people in Shetland tha’ take cannabis or
speed. Everybody’s got their vice, everybody you tell me tha’ I know just to be the WHOLE
population o’ my age group no doubt, um, that that’re involved in dope, speed. There’s a
very small minority o’ people actually in Shetland that do have anythin’ to do with heroin,
you know? [5–6, 49–51, 1–6]

The modest size of the heroin scene, the long-term user Angus (N) traces back
to the small size of the Shetland community itself. Furthermore, he portrays the
Shetland heroin users as always having consisted of a ‘small, tight group’ of friends
within the wider social setting of the Shetland community, which is characterised by
everybody knowing each other [14, 9–32]. On the other hand, about half the interviewed users state that relative to Shetland’s population the number of heroin users
is considerable, as is further outlined below.

6.4

Location and Expansion of the Heroin Scene

6.3.1

109

Number of Users

Even though Angus referred to the Shetland heroin users as a ‘a little sor’ o’ group
o’ friends’ many citations give rise to the assumption that the scene at large embraces
at the very least approximately 100 users [Ben (N) 14, 17; Lilly (N), 17, 26–32;
Cathy (C), 3, 6–10].
One female non-client draws attention to the fact that many heroin users ‘keep
themselves to themselves behind closed doors’ [Lilly, 17, 28–29]. This makes it
particularly difficult to guess the overall number of users.
Another woman, this time a client, considers the number of ‘hidden users’, meaning those who do not attend the local drugs project, to be anywhere up to 100 [Cathy
(C), 3, 6–10]. These would add up to the 100 odd opiate-using clients registered
with the CDT in the year 2004–2005.1 Regarding the obviously considerable number
of Shetlanders hiding their heroin use, there is unanimity amongst many users [e.g.
Mark, C, 6, 22–24].
One client breaks ranks by going as far as to estimate that alone between 400 and
500 people in Shetland use heroin habitually, not including those using recreationally
on an occasional basis.
Mark (C): […] I reckon 500 people are hooked on heroin.
R: 500?
Mark: Yeah.
R: How do you come to this number?
Mark: Maybe it’s lower bu’ I reckon aboo’ 4–500 people are hooked on heroin. [5, 47–50
and 6, 1–6]

On the whole, the guessed figures seem to suggest that the number of people who
use heroin in Shetland amounts to at least 100. Yet, a guess in this context is likely
to be subjective in so far as it is based on who someone knows or knows of. The
more involved someone is in the heroin scene, the more users they will probably
know. This ‘level of scene involvement’ will be further illuminated at a later stage
when the analysis of the data moves further into the internal structure and organisation
of the subculture.

6.4

Location and Expansion of the Heroin Scene

On the whole, interviews suggest that the Shetland heroin scene and specifically
its market are predominantly located in Lerwick. Most trade seems to take place in
the island’s biggest town, where apparently the majority of users live [e.g. Claire,

1

Drug and alcohol corporate action plan 2005/2006, S.4.

110

6

The Features and Descriptive Characteristics of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

C, 2, 42–3, 2; Oliver, O, 2, 40–42]. Nonetheless, a significant number of heroin
consumers, including three of the interviewed users, are stated to live in smaller
towns, such as Brae, Mossbank, Sandwick, and Scalloway, and the smaller inhabited islands, such as Burra [island on the East coast of Shetland not far from
Lerwick], the countryside, and even very remote areas [Mona, C, 7, 49–50; Rick,
C, 13, 22–29; Cathy, C, 8, 45–51]. However, several of the participants living in
Lerwick confirm a relative ignorance regarding the extent of heroin use taking place
beyond the town. In the following, a young Shetlander describes his personal user
group, whose members all live and use in a small place in the north of Shetland.
R: But you would say that it’s all over Shetland like groups of people using?
I (C): Oh yeah, everywhere. Likes of up north, likes of Brae [small town in north of
Shetland] an’ Mossbank [small town in north of Shetland]. You’re guaranteed there’d
be a good few people up there tha’ do the same as we do. […] [6, 39–47]

Living in the countryside himself, he seems to be more aware of heroin-userelated activity occurring outwith Lerwick. He explains that ‘you’re either from
Lerwick or you’re not from Lerwick’ [6, 25]. The degree to which ‘toonies’ and
‘sheep’, as the Lerwick man Rick (C) jokingly refers to people from Lerwick and
the countryside, mix is seemingly restricted [Rick, C, 13, 23–24]. Consequently,
town and country users, respectively, may only have a fragmentary knowledge of
the heroin scene’s size and nature in either location.
Some users, who are originally from the mainland, outline their personal experience
of having lived in small places outside Lerwick when first moving to Shetland.
According to their accounts, being an outsider and living in the countryside complicates access to illicit drugs enormously [e.g. Robin, C, 3, 34–36]. When living at a
distance from the main heroin market, one might have to be well connected socially
to gain access to less common drugs, such as heroin. The sale of heroin in remoter
districts seems to be significantly rarer, of smaller scale, and more exclusive than in
the town region of Lerwick.

6.5

Age Range

Which users or user groups interviewees know also appears to be decisive when
they speak about the age range within the heroin scene. Citations in this context
suggest that generally users tend to primarily associate with other users of roughly
their own age group, who they therefore have more knowledge about. Many participants agree on heroin having originally been used by primarily older users and on
the average age of heroin users to still be decisively higher than the average age of
party drug users. Lilly (N), Angus (N), and Justin (C) all assume the age limit of
young users usually not falling below 20 [16, 5–8; 1, 50; 2, 14–15]; however, they
have varying estimations regarding the range.
Contrasting the heroin subculture in Shetland with urban scenes, Angus points
out in the citation below the users’ overall older age and the ‘cliquey’ character of

6.6

Male/Female Ratio

111

the island scene. He appraises the age range to be between 20 and 40 and exemplifies
this trend by reflecting on his own comparatively ‘high’ age when beginning to use
heroin.
Angus (N): Bu’ I suppose tha’s the same South in a way. Bu’ there’s a very kinda cliquey,
the heroin scene up here. An’ more older people as well.
R: Yeah. What, what age? What kinda age range?
Angus: Well, I’d say abou’, from probably abou’ 20 to 40 type thing. I know more, more
older people, I know. I don’ know very many young people who touch i’ at all. It’s all more
people my own age an’ tha’
R: What age are you?
Angus: I’m [late 30s] in [month of birth]. An’ I’ve been, I mean, I I was quite, I was
quite old before, I mean, I was into my 20s before I started even dabblin’ with heroin like.
I mean, I’ve had it a couple o’, I’ve taken drugs from, from the age o’ [mid teenage
years] – like glue sniffin’, acid an’ speed an’ stuff like tha’. [1, 44–2, 10]

By cliquey, participants seem to refer to a way of social exclusiveness of certain
groups. This attribute is employed by a number of interviewees when characterising
the heroin subculture and will receive specific attention in later parts of Part II.
Amongst other participants, Angus’ statement regarding the higher age of heroin
users is supported by Justin, a young client in his early 20s, who states that all the
other users he knows are older than him. Nonetheless, against this he has heard of
young school kids injecting heroin [2, 10–29].
Besides Justin, other interviewees have also suggested a recent fall in the initiation age of heroin users [2, 16–17]. The average age of heroin users in Shetland
might have decreased over time and now be approaching the mean age of party drug
users. Rick (C) assumes the age to range from as low as 16 to as high as 60. He
explains the broad age range in terms of boredom, as Shetland does not offer a great
variety of leisure activities [9, 36–46]. Hints at the recent decrease in the initiation
age of heroin users will be further illuminated later on.

6.6

Male/Female Ratio

When speaking about the relation of females and males using and dealing heroin,
most interviewed users believe that there is a decisively greater proportion of male
users. This, again, is based on who they know and know of and, regarding the
clients, who to their knowledge attends the drugs project.
One occasional male user presents his perception regarding the gender ratio
amongst the users of the drugs most commonly used in Shetland [Christian, 16,
21–28]. On the whole, he sees the drug scene in general as being ‘male dominated’
however, he believes that cannabis and ecstasy are used by an equal share of female
and male users. Amphetamines and heroin, on the other hand are, according to his
opinion, used by significantly more men than women. With respect to the latter, he
states that about 90% are male. The same number has also been given by a female
client [Claire, 9, 42–46], while one male non-client estimates between 80% and

112

6

The Features and Descriptive Characteristics of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

85% of heroin users to be male [Ben, 14, 123–24]. The occasionally using Shetlander
Oliver again suggests an only slightly higher male proportion of up to 60% in recent
years [21, 32–34], whereas several participants are even firmly convinced of an
equal male/female ratio [Lilly, 15, 18; Philip, 22, 14–28; Oscar, C, 6, 26–27]. The
Shetland man Philip (N) emphatically states that ‘there’s a lot of women using, too’
[22, 18]. Along similar lines, the client Claire declares that the male/female relation
is difficult to calculate precisely. On the one hand, far more people use heroin than
attend the drugs project, since a lot of people ‘won’t go near the place, just for the
stigma’ and, on the other hand, a lot of female users never really had heroin habits
(physical dependence) [3, 44–47], therefore they will not appear in the drugs project
statistics. In the following citation, Hannah (C) explains that women are often
motivated to begin using heroin because their male partners are using. Similar to
Claire above, she too states that decisively less women tend to engage in or move
on to heavy heroin use patterns, such as frequent, habitual, and intravenous use, than
men. They rather smoke heroin as a sort of hangover cure after a party weekend
with alcohol and ecstasy than in an addictive, maybe even daily, way. Including
herself, she only knows a handful of women with serious heroin addictions, who
have used sizeable amounts of heroin.
Hannah (C): Women, I wouldn’ say there is as many female users as there is male –
definitely not. I think the proportion of women usin’ is a lo’ less to men. Uumm, an’ I think
females, a lo’ o’ females start usin’ through their partner usin’. Uumm, wi’ most o’ them I
don’ think the problem gets too, too bad. Uumm, some o’ them might even jus’ use at a
weekend, after a night out drinkin’ an’ takin’ Es. Bu’ maybe end up usin’ it like the early
hours of Sunday mornin’ to come down from takin’ Es an’ things like tha’. Uummm, I don’
really know an awful lo’ o’ females that use really heavily or have serious heroin addictions. I mean, probably I know a handful of people. A handful of females that do or have,
um, had heroin problems an’ have had serious like, used a lot or injected, but not very many.
An’ I think, most females that I know that have used, only, have only smoked, smoked
heroin.
R: Would you say that you were rather an exception?
Hannah: I would say I am, yeah. Along with a handful of other people I would say. An
exception in the amounts that I used. [11, 19–38]

As mentioned above, some users are strongly convinced that there are indeed as
many female as male heroin users. Women, however, may keep their use significantly
more secretive than their male counterparts [e.g. Philip, 22, 14–28; Oscar, C, 6,
26–27]. With respect to dealing, Claire (C) declares that hitherto women have been
involved in dealing to a very restricted degree. She knows one woman who supplies
small amounts of the heroin someone else brings to the island. Another few might
have bought and taken up some heroin from the mainland of Britain and sold small
quantities over short periods of time. Whereas, according to Claire, women are
involved in the trading of speed, the supply of heroin has hitherto predominantly
been organised and carried out by men [4, 2–5].
Concluding from interviewees’ accounts, the active players in the Shetland heroin
scene with respect to dealing and using seem to predominantly be men. Women are
repeatedly described as often being motivated to use heroin by their previously
using partners rather than consuming on their own initiative. Furthermore, they are

6.7 Nature and Extent of Heroin-Use-Associated Problems

113

also perceived as tending to use less heavily, addictively, and riskily. Corresponding
to the predications of several participants, decisively fewer women are involved in
heroin use than men, which would also be reflected in the much higher proportion
of male compared to female clients. The smaller proportion of female clients could
indeed be traced back to an overall smaller proportion of female users or, as pointed
out before, to patterns of heroin use amongst women generally tending to be less
alarming than amongst men and thus giving less reason for treatment. In addition,
female heroin users might be deterred from seeking treatment to a greater degree
than male users, as the general public might perceive heroin use as being even less
socially acceptable for women. Thus, amongst women the proportion of hidden
heroin users might exceed the proportion amongst men. Consequently, the number
of female heroin users cannot be inferred with certainty. However, participants generally state that women seem to be less actively and deeply involved in specifically
the trade side of the subculture.

6.7

Nature and Extent of Heroin-Use-Associated Problems

When contrasted with urban heroin scenes, interviewed users typically portray the
Shetland situation as trouble-free, sheltered, and socially privileged. To give just a
few examples, Shetland heroin users are supposed to be ‘living in a bubble’ and
‘wouldn’t last for 20 min in some schemes on the mainland’ [Robin, C, 8, 37–39].
When asked about whether heroin use in Shetland constituted a problem, many
participants gave answers similar to Philip (N), who assesses the situation not as ‘a
big problem, but certainly a problem’ [13, 37–40]. According to his narration, Philip
had phases in his life of being heavily involved in both using and dealing heroin
and thus lays claim to having a comprehensive overview about the extent and
nature of the subculture. In comparison to the Shetland heroin scene, Mark,
originating from the urban mainland, explains that ‘it’s more epidemic down the
road’ [Mark, 5, 17].
Most participants maintain that heroin use in Shetland is far less ‘problematic’.
The characteristic problematic is associated with, for example, acquisitive crime,
violence, prostitution, severe addiction with physical and psychological morbidity,
social marginalisation, such as homelessness and unemployment, and blood-borne
infectious diseases.
In the following, interviewees’ descriptions and explanations regarding problems
associated with the Shetland heroin subculture are depicted and debated.

6.7.1

Financing Use and Habit: Work Instead of Crime?

In the context of the Shetland heroin scene’s restricted noticeability described at the
beginning of the section, the high levels of employment generally in Shetland and

114

6

The Features and Descriptive Characteristics of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

even amongst a significant number of heavy, regular heroin users have already been
mentioned. Time and again, participants identify these as causally related to the
overall advantageous conditions within and around the scene. Participants are not
solely speaking of people using recreationally on an occasional basis, but also of
those with a ‘heroin habit’, a physical dependence. In an urban setting, many
participants would regard the latter as significantly prone to criminal conduct or
begging in order to finance their drug and especially heroin use, as explained by the
long-term user Robin, cited below. He himself originates from a city on the mainland and has been involved in circles of heavy heroin users both in Shetland and on
the urban mainland.
Robin (C): They’re livin’ in a bubble up here. The Shetlanders don’ really know, I don’t think,
they really know how lucky they are to have the way a’ life tha’ they’ve go’. They have a drug
problem, I know tha’, I’ve been in the circle wi’ the drug problem, bu’ the crime isnae up here,
you know? People usually work up here to pay for their drug problem. You know? Whereas
on the mainland people steal to feed their habi’ whereas up here people work. [7, 32–37]

Another client, who like Robin has also socialised with heavily using, criminally
active city heroin scenes for many years and with groups of dependent Shetlanders,
concurs. He declares that there is crime in Shetland – for example, break-ins and
shoplifting – but decisively less than on the urban mainland, as most people consuming heroin in Shetland are full-time employed and can thereby ‘keep their habits
going’ [Mark, C, 1, 43–2, 7]. Corresponding with this line of argumentation, the
Shetland man Angus (N) also argues that the relatively prosperous socio-economic
situation in Shetland, reflected in its generally low unemployment rates, allows
many users to earn the amount of money sufficient to cover their substance use
expenditures [11, 50–51, 12, 1–8].
Estimates on the proportion of working heroin users range from 50% [Lilly, N,
16, 10–14] to ‘most users’ [Ben, N, 11, 46–12, 3; Angus, N, 11, 32–35; Robin, C,
7, 32–8, 4]. Due to the much higher unemployment rates in metropolitan Britain,
urban users are repeatedly depicted as not being as privileged as having the option
to resort to this opportunity. With Shetland’s low levels of poverty, virtually no
homelessness, and an extensive support system, there is not the same desperation
for heroin users to steal and to beg as there is down south [Claire, C, 4, 32–40].
With its wealth and the lack of an underlying crime factors in the heroin scene,
the occasional user Christian argues that Shetland is unique compared to the urban
mainland, where he believes most street crimes to be drug related. Although the
general public in Shetland tends to regard heroin use in itself as something bad,
unacceptable, and despicable, most people do not perceive it as constituting a real
social problem. According to one occasional user, this is because ‘these people just
do it in their own houses and just lie around gouching for days on end but don’t
seem to go and commit crime’ [Christian, 1, 21–23].
In the following, a personal example is provided of a young Shetland man, who
used dependently for several years and exclusively paid for his heroin consumption
from his full-time job. Besides himself, Oscar too speaks about his user group,
which had consumed heroin together for nearly 2 years. All of the six men, aged

6.7 Nature and Extent of Heroin-Use-Associated Problems

115

between their mid-20s and mid-40s, always financed their heroin use from their
wages, while some used intravenously and some smoked. Arguing along the same
lines as Christian before, he does not view their behaviour as a social problem,
since he and his pals neither cause harm to other people nor society. His dependent
lifestyle of having to ensure his daily ration, to avoid withdrawals, he regards,
however, as a personal problem.
R: And, um did you have problems financing it?
Oscar, (C): Not really, because I’ve always worked. I mean, the group o’ people tha’ I
know, we all work. I dinnae see i’ it, i’ is a problem, ken? It’s no’ good for you, but, like my
group of friends it’s, it’s only for us, it’s not for anybody else. We don’ push i’ onto anybody, we don’t try an’ get people into i’. It’s jus’ for us, it’s no’ for anybody else. I dinnae
see any problem with that but … but still it’s no’ good. You cannae go on. It comes to a
point where it’s just, you just have tae stop, you know? [2, 39–49]

Although relatively rare, some incidents of acquisitive crime do seem to occur.
The townsman Robin continues his account from above by speaking about such
rare instances of crime that are committed only by a very restricted number of users.
Such an exceptional example appears to be one Shetland interviewee in his mid-30s,
who states that in order to finance his heroin use, he usually tops up his benefits by
a bit of shoplifting [C, 13, 39–44]. Robin explains that in addition to the general
Shetland wealth, people are also discouraged from criminal conduct due to the
close-knit social structure of the island. The lack of anonymity and consequent risk
of being found out deter many potential criminals. If people do steal, they tend to do
so from the large, impersonal chains Safeway and Co-op.
R: How come?
Robin: Aaah, it just, there are shops up here tha’ pay quite a lo’ o’ money at the end o’ the
week, you know? So therefore they can afford to buy enough heroin, so’s they can work,
you know, all week. Whereas on the mainland it’s, it’s, it’s no’, it’s no’ really possible to
dae. Plus the fact, ah, wi’ the shops bein’ owned by the Shetland people themselves, you
kow, shopliftin’ isnae really an option here for them, you know? ’Cos if you would steal fae
a shop an’ sell i’, an’ try an’ sell i’ roond the pubs, you would probably be sellin’ i’ to
somebody tha’ knows the person tha’ owns the actual shop tha’ you stole i’ ou’ of. There
has been one or two people tha’ have done a little bi’ o’ shopliftin’ up here, tha’ I know of.
Bu’ it’s been ou’ o’ Safeway’s an’ the Co-op. They won’ take ou’ o’ the small shops. […]
[7, 32–8, 4]

Apart from the preventive effect of the comparatively high employment rates,
Shetland users are also not provided with the same opportunities to steal for their
drug use as in an anonymous city. As pointed out by Mark (C), due to the social and
geographic setting, that is, the small population as well as geographic size of the
island, you can’t just get away with robbery in Shetland [1, 43]. As a concrete
example, one interviewee explains that on the urban mainland they would do
anything illegal to gain money for heroin, which in Shetland, in contrast, they would
avoid due to the high risk of immediately getting caught [6, 8–15].
The lack of anonymity resulting from these conditions has been ascribed to
everyone knowing each other and each others’ business, which again goes hand in
hand with a pronounced presence of what could be termed ‘social control’.

116

6

The Features and Descriptive Characteristics of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

Therefore, criminal behaviour cannot be performed without a strongly increased
risk of being found out and suffering the ensuing legal and social sanctions.
Consequently, the explanations for the small extent of acquisitive crime are likely
to be found in a combination of Shetland’s geographical, social, and economic
specificities. On the one hand, Shetland’s comparatively prosperous socio-economic
status, including high employment rates, reduces the levels of ‘desperation’ for
drug money amongst the dependent or heavier heroin users. On the other hand,
most of them seem to be deterred by the threatening social cost of ostracism or
even exclusion. As a result, the majority of heavy users seem to disregard robbing
and stealing as a lucrative or even viable option to pay one’s drug use expenses
[Gerry, C, 14, 18–21].

6.7.2

Benefits

Of the 24 participants comprising the sample, 10 stated to be in employment or
education at the time of the interviews, a further 4 to be alternating between employment and unemployment and to be currently unemployed, the remaining 9 to be
unemployed and receiving social benefits, and 1 man refused to provide any personal details about himself (see Table 3.1). For the nine or ten users living on social
benefits, the money disposable on drugs is obviously limited to a relatively small
amount. Without further income sources, people have to adjust the extent of their
heroin consumption to their restricted budgets. This situation is exemplified by the
unemployed Shetlander Gordon (C). According to his statement below, his first
priority is the provision of electricity and sufficient nutrition; drugs he purchases
with the remaining money.
Gordon (C): […] Bu’ nowadays I just budget i’ for what I want. I always get me electric
an’ a wee bit a’ food in first and then from what’s left over I spend on either drugs or
gamblin’ or wha’ever. [13, 41–43]

Exactly the same situation seems to apply to Rick (C), who also adjusts the
degree of his heroin use to his benefit budget, after food and electricity provision
[12, 27–32].
As a result of the Shetland-specific socio-cultural conditions, a considerable
proportion of unemployed heroin users appear to come to terms with the financially
limited possibilities of their living conditions. Others, including several of the interviewed users, are described to supplement their unemployment money through
dealing, as outlined in the following paragraph.

6.7.3

Dealing as a Means of Financing

As the only viable opportunity in Shetland to finance one’s heroin use illegally,
participants named ‘dealing’. The long-using client Mark contrasts the ease of gaining

6.7 Nature and Extent of Heroin-Use-Associated Problems

117

enough money (through criminal activity) to support his heroin habit while living in a
British city with his situation in Shetland. Here, he has neither a regular income
from a job nor the possibility of criminal activity. In his opinion, maintaining a drug
habit in Shetland is only possible either on the basis of employment or drug dealing.
Mark (C): […] The world’s different from doon the road! In many ways, man. Food,
clothes, basic things is dearer up here – for one. Just to live is maer expensive. Never mind
getting’ a drug habit. If you’re getting’ a drug habit up here, if you’re no’ workin’, man,
pphh! It’s sshhi’! You know, it’s no like tha’ doon the road. Doon the road, I mean, I wake
up in the mornin’, […] go ou’ for shopliftin’, make myself 100 quid in half or an hour, back
haem an’ go’ a scored bag in my hand, you know? Up here, man, you cannae dae this kinna
thing. You know, it’s it’s hard. If you’ve no’ go’, if you’ve no’ go’ money comin’ in every
week, right, like, ah, a wage, it’s SHIT to keep a drug habit. Unless you’re daein’ drugs,
sellin’ drugs then, yeah. Bu’ it’s so shit up here. [4–5, 51–13]

Other interviewees agree with Mark’s view that Shetland users tend to either
work or deal when using drugs – especially heroin – habitually. Some participants
go as far as to claim that only dealers are able to maintain real heroin habits, while
James (N), who himself uses rather heavily, states that dealing basically constitutes
the only criminal activity, as conducting robberies and assaults in Shetland ‘is nae
very bright’ [8, 46–48] due to the island’s small size.
Hence, Shetland heroin users seem to adapt their ways of gaining the necessary
funds for their drugs to the local circumstances by primarily focussing on earnings
through employment, social benefits, and dealing drugs. ‘Helping out each other’
also seems to play a significant role in this context as will be elucidated later on.

6.7.4

‘Skag Slags’

Besides acquisitive crime, interviewees typically name prostitution as another
common means of financing use when speaking about urban scenes of heavy heroin
users. Apart from the long-term user Claire (C), who has experienced phases of
severe intravenous heroin use on the urban mainland but also in Shetland, only
Gordon (C) speaks about prostitution in a literal sense taking place on the island.
He describes a few women, who used to prostitute themselves to finance alcohol
habits but stopped once they had begun to use heroin intravenously, as they were
ashamed of the injection marks [11, 46–51, 12, 7]. Claire describes one woman
who used to sexually serve men on fishing boats, though she is unsure whether the
woman’s motivation was drug related or not. Additionally, she knows of two or
three women who are deridingly referred to as ‘skag slags’, which means that they
‘trade’ in sex with dealers in return for heroin. Even though she states that a hidden form of prostitution to a very restricted degree does occur in Shetland, she
also emphasises that it is in no way comparable to urban, anonymous prostitution,
where women stand at street corners. Standing at street corners, obviously,
does not constitute a form of behaviour that would be compatible with Shetland’s
social structure, she explains.

118

6

The Features and Descriptive Characteristics of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

Claire (C): […] There’s a few girls tha’ have worked, tha’ I know tha’ have.
R: Is that only on the mainland or up here as well?
Claire: Yeah, there’s a couple of girls up here, tha’ used tae. There is this girl called Mary.
[…] Not so much as a, I mean, prostitution as standing on street corners, but … making
arrangements for certain men, you know? Uum … she used to go on boats years ago, she
used to go round the fishing boats an’ that. But nothin’, I mean, you wouldn’ get people
standin’ at street corners, that’s all I know anyway, I can’t think of anyone else.
R: Was that then drug, drug, ah, related prostitution or nothing to do with drugs?
Claire: Oh, here, yeah, tha’ would be drug related, yeah. Before I don’t know, about the
boat thing. But then they could have just been promiscuous, as you say. This girl I know,
yeah, she, tha’ was drug related. I mean, that’s the usual, that’s the usual kind of, what’s
used to be termed as ‘skag slag’, you know, people tha’ sleep with … drug dealers. Yeah,
that’s goin’ on up here, but only limited to maybe two or three females, I would think. I
mean, it’s mainly men up here, there’s no’ many women with … heroin habits as such. [3,
16–41]

Claire takes into account that the number of ‘skag slags’ would grow, if more
women had heroin habits, as she believes that the physically dependent users are
mainly male. Although no other interviewee literally used the phrase ‘skag slag’,
others also mention this phenomenon. One female client, whose identity will for
privacy reasons not be outlined any further, herself states having had several phases
in her life, when she was intimately involved with heroin dealers in Shetland, so that
her daily drug supply would be provided for [e.g. 5, 11–18]. Another female client,
whose character will for the same reason also remain fully concealed, describes
how she worked as a prostitute when being heavily involved in a heroin scene in a
big, anonymous city on the mainland of Britain. However, she has never thought of
taking up this business in Shetland.
On the basis of the just given account, the actual extent of people exchanging sex
with dealers for free or easier access to drugs cannot be accurately estimated,
neither can the prevalence of ‘prostitution’ – selling sex for money. On balance,
prostitution amongst drug users seems to be a rather rare occurrence in Shetland,
especially if the person is an intravenous drug user. For one, the small size of the
island does not appear to provide the anonymity necessary for a socially stigmatised
phenomenon such as prostitution: Intravenous drug users would face the risk of
being identified with two forms of socially unacceptable behaviour.

6.7.5

Community-Mindedness: Protection Against Crime?

In the preceding parts of the section, when analysing the reasons interviewees report
for Shetland’s low rates of crime in general and drug crime in particular, the deterring effect of the island’s close-knit social network and consequent social control
have been identified. However, rather than merely associating the island’s social
proximity with increased levels of social control, participants also describe another
substantial side to this location-specific particularity. According to various users,
the geographical isolation, together with the small size of the island and its population, encourages communal, social sentiments amongst heroin users. These are

6.7 Nature and Extent of Heroin-Use-Associated Problems

119

manifested in the form of a strong inclination to help each other out when money
or heroin are scarce. The communal spirit, embracing both social control and
social ‘care’, can be captured by the term ‘community-mindedness’.2 A further
facet of this spirit has already been alluded to in the section on the users’ age range.
There, the long-term user Angus (N) speaks about the heroin subculture’s network
as being ‘cliquey’ [Angus, N, 1, 44]. This attribute appears repeatedly in a number
of interviews – either referring to the social character of the heroin scene, certain
parts of it, or of Shetland in general. The client Gerry argues that in Shetland
people do not have to beg for money: they can get money from a friend. This is ‘cos
somebody always knows somebody’ as a consequence of the close-knit cliquey
social network of users [6, 13–14]. Against this background of everybody in
Shetland knowing everybody, Angus emphasises the anxious endeavour of employed
heroin users to keep their use secret in order to protect their jobs [N, 12, 8–10].
The potential impact of the social stigma attached to heroin is generally presented
as being particularly strong and far-reaching in the small, socially narrow community.
The lack of anonymity allows social sanctions to impinge on an individual’s life far
more severely than it could in a comparatively anonymous urban setting. Sanctions
mentioned range from social downgrading to exclusion.
The principles of the community-minded attitude amongst heroin users are
illustrated by Mona (C) in the following citation. She argues that people, including
heroin users, caring for and helping each other are primarily responsible for the low
levels of crime in Shetland.
Mona (C): The price tha’ i’ costs, it’s really expensive, so the circles tha’ you are in,
because i’ is Shetland a lo’ o’ people bounce off each other an’ if you go’ a bit then you
might be offerin’ i’ to your friends or somebody who’s a close friend or they might give you
a bit an’ you end up bouncin’ off each other an’ kinna all helpin’ each other ou’, to a certain
degree. An’ I think, that’s why there’s probably no’ so much crime up here. People know
tha’ you cannae ge’ away wi’ house breakin’ an’ all tha’ up here, so there’s no point in doin’
i’ unless you wanna go tae jail. [7, 12–21]

Rather than stealing and robbing, people ‘bounce off each other’ (take turns in
helping each other out) or otherwise buy ‘on tick’ (on credit). Another female client
explains that due to the lack of criminal opportunities, many heroin users build up
debts when they are unable to pay for their drug consumption. In this way, she
personally became fairly deeply indebted to a dealer [Claire, 4, 8–17].
In the following, Robin (C), who comes from a British city, explains how he
gradually learned to adapt his previous city behaviour to the situation in Shetland.
In urban heroin scenes, he would readily have engaged in criminal and violent
behaviour, which are neither necessary nor appreciated within the Shetland heroin
subculture. He explains that on the one hand, drugs trade related interaction
between Shetlanders typically does not involve the assistance of weapons. On the
other hand, considering the respectful and supportive treatment he has hitherto
2

The term ‘community-mindedness’ is originally derived from the notion of Shetland dealers
acting in a ‘community-minded’ manner, as had been stated and outlined by a Shetland police
officer in a previous study on heroin use on the Shetland Islands (Stallwitz 2007, pp. 263–264).

120

6

The Features and Descriptive Characteristics of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

encountered on the island, he seems to regard criminal and violent behaviour as
inappropriate. He also affirms that in an urban, anonymous setting, he would not
have had a problem to break into big, impersonal factories. In Shetland, however,
where everyone knows each other, he would have difficulty in harming people
familiar to him.
R: And would you say that there are certain things you would have done on the mainland
you wouldn’t do up here?
Robin (C): Oh definitely! Definitely.
R: Like what?
Robin: Aaah, breakin’ intae places, like shops, you know? Like on the mainland it’s multinational companies, in Shetland it’s like family businesses, you know? Sooo, that’s just as
bad as breakin’ into their house. You know? ’Cos, ’cos they’re no multinationals, so therefore you’re hurtin’ the people personally. Bu’ on the mainland I, second nature was, a lo’ o’
the way I kept my drug habi’ was to break intae factories. Tha’ was the reason why I was
out ootta [British city]. […] I knew how to ge’ intae so many safes, […] So, I mean, like
shop-lifitin’, tha’s somethin’ I wouldnae do in Shetland either. Bu’ on the mainland, aye,
definitely, no’ a problem, tha’ an’
R: What else? Are there other things?
Robin: Aah, I wouldnae, I wouldnae bring drugs onto this island.
R: Why not?
Robin: Aaah, this island’s been good to me, ah, on the mainland, aah… I’d done a lo’ o’
bad things when I was young. I was a very angry boy an’ I used carry weapons 24/7. Aah,
I’d been shot, I’d been slashed, I’d been battered with baseball bats aaand I have done the
same thing to other people. Bu’ when I came up here for the first five weeks I still had the
mainland mentality, you know? An’ I still carried everywhere I went a double edged dagger, was always my preferred tool. […] ’Cos it’s no’ like on the mainland up here. My
heid’s no’ in hinges. I don’t need eyes in the back o’ my heid. You know? Like pubs on the
mainland, if I’m sittin’ in a pub on the mainland I’m sittin’ wi’ my back part against the
wall an’ I’m sittin’ where I can see who’s comin’ in the door. You know, it’s, whereas up
here I can sit on a stool wi’ my back to the door, you know? I’m no’ waitin’ on somebody
to come in an’ runnin’ a sho’ through me or a bullet through the back o’ my heid. […] [6,
1–7, 3]

Community-mindedness and its contrasting social consequences for users, its
influence on their behaviour, and the shaping of the heroin scene’s social structures
will be illuminated from different perspectives and receive more thorough analytical
attention when looking at the subculture’s internal make-up in the subsequent
section of the report.

6.7.6

Summary and Conclusions Concerning Drug-Related
Crime in Shetland

On the whole, and especially when contrasted with urban conditions, the interviewed
heroin users agree that the extent of heroin use associated crime and violence, such
as robberies, assaults, or territorial fights, in Shetland is comparatively small.
According to interviewees’ explanations the reasons are varied. High employment
rates and relative wealth amongst many heavy or habituated users have been cited

6.7 Nature and Extent of Heroin-Use-Associated Problems

121

to account for considerably less ‘desperation’ to engage in illegal conduct than participants argue was the case in urban Britain. Another substantial aspect repeatedly
mentioned is the island’s close-knit social network. On the one hand, heroin users –
like Shetlanders in general – help each other out when drugs or money are scarce.
On the other hand, heroin use constitutes a behaviour that is generally socially
stigmatised particularly in such a small isolated place. The pronounced presence of
social control in a small community and the consequent fear of social ostracism and
exclusion appear to deter most users from resorting to crime as a financial means to
pay for their drug use. Similar circumstances, including the lack of ‘anonymous
street corners’, seem to apply to prostitution, which might exist in a certain undercover form and to a very limited degree. According to several interviews, dealing is
the only criminal action associated with illicit drug use – apart from using drugs –
that Shetland drug users seem to engage in. As has already been concluded, to a
certain extent Shetland heroin users seem to adapt their drug use related behaviour
to the local particularities.

6.7.7

Extent of Addictive and Heavy Use

When speaking about the extent of the social and individual costs connected with
using and supplying heroin in Shetland, users frequently outline their perceptions of
heroin addiction levels on the island. Comparing the Shetland heroin scene to that
of an average urban scene, many users estimate addiction rates within the former to
be decisively lower than within the latter. One reason might be that in relation to
urban scenes, Shetlanders ‘do it more for fun’ [James, N, 2, 41] rather than as a way
of coping with, for example, deprived living conditions. Oliver states that even
though there are many people in Shetland, who, like him, use heroin on an occasional, recreational basis, this group has come to be outnumbered by ‘junkies’. He
assumes that he himself would now be surprised at the actual number of physically
addicted users ‘really fucked-up on it’ [O, 8, 12–17]. However, against this another
occasional user, Christian, suggests that
[…] there’s not really anybody that I kno’ that’s like actually full-scale addicted to heroin.
Because you can’t get it regularly enough. So they’ve got to go cold turkey, ken, whether
they want to or not. [4, 19–23]

Thus, he argues that severe physical addiction to heroin is not really possible on
the island as the drug is not readily available enough for someone to get in such a
condition. It might well be that the content of the two citations is not mutually
exclusive, that is, severe physical addiction is indeed not possible as one has to
withdraw regularly when no heroin is available, while there can still be a considerable number of ‘junkies’. At a later stage of the interview, Oliver refers to ‘junkies’
as people whose lives completely revolve around heroin, or obtaining prescriptions
for heroin substitutes, such as methadone or dihydrocodeine, year after year. He
states to know of a lot of people like this of whom a good proportion are already

122

6

The Features and Descriptive Characteristics of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

middle-aged, that is, in their 30s and 40s [12–13, 42–5]. The following citation
gives an estimation of the number of users who are likely to use heroin in such a
way that they develop a physical state of dependence, when heroin is available.
Ben (N): Bu’, um, yeah, there’ll be abou’ 30/40 tha’ can get themselves habited. When i’
when when i’ happens. [N, 14, 32–34]

While the three cited users Christian, Oliver, and Ben speak about the restricted
availability seeming to have a controlling effect on the level of physical addiction
people generally develop in Shetland, the client Claire also points to financial
limitations preventing most users getting roped into serious states of addiction.
Claire (C): I mean, it’s CONTROLLED up here in a sense, I think, financial limitations.
An’ people simply can’t, I mean, you find the people who really really have habits are the
people, are the people who are dealin’ with drugs.
R: And they’re the only ones who have habits?
Claire: Obviously the people who work. But even them they’re limited by the availability.
[4, 44]

Her argument links in with one of the central conclusions of the preceding subsection: In Shetland, heavy heroin users do not have the same possibilities as in an
anonymous urban area to obtain financial means for drugs via criminal conduct.
While urban users who develop a physical dependence have the potential to work
themselves into a spiral of using increasing amounts of heroin and getting ever
more deeply involved in criminal activities, this option remains closed to
Shetlanders, which might be one reason for levels of addiction being comparatively lower. Claire argues that the only people who are really able to develop a
physical habit are the dealers, as they are, so-to-speak, at the source. Employed
users have a financial advantage over those who are unemployed. However, they
are still restricted by the limited availability of heroin. Her arguments exemplify
and summarise quite well the line of argumentation several other participants also
take when explaining why addiction levels are lower in Shetland than in urban
Britain. Claire uses the attribute controlled with respect to the Shetland heroin
scene and yet she points out that this control comes out of necessity rather than free
will [7, 28]. Thus, it might be inferred that if the community-minded spirit with
especially the strong social control would not exist, the variances in acquisitive
crime and addictive heroin use between Shetland and the urban mainland might not
exist or at least not be as pronounced.

6.7.8

High-Risk Behaviour and Blood-Borne Viruses

While the participants’ accounts convey a comparatively benign impression of
the individual and social costs of the heroin scene in Shetland, their views on the
blood-borne viral infection hepatitis C are more disturbing. In this respect, those
participants who report having an insight to and knowledge about the extent of
blood-borne diseases amongst injecting drug users on the island, all express their

6.7 Nature and Extent of Heroin-Use-Associated Problems

123

concern. For example Robin, who comes from the mainland and is cited below,
estimates the number of hepatitis C infected intravenous drug users in Shetland
to be frighteningly high. His personal involvement in urban heroin scenes in different cities over a number of years, together with very similar statements by
other interviewees, diminishes the probability of extreme exaggeration. He
explains the Shetland-specific circumstances of a small population with an
intensified stigma attached to socially deviant behaviour and phenomena, such as
intravenous drugs use and associated blood-borne infections. Out of fear of being
ostracised by other users, Robin argues that many injectors will conceal their
infectious status in communal injecting situations and rather take the risk of possibly infecting others. This might happen by, for example, sharing water or a
filter for a syringe they had previously injected themselves with. The interviewee
also points to a widespread ignorance and unawareness amongst many island
injectors regarding the risks of infection. Consequently, they are unaware of their
own infectious status.
Robin (C): I mean, the amount o’ people on this island wi’ hep C is unbelievable!
R: Is it?
Robin: Oh! I’ REALLY is!! An’ the amount o’ people tha’s probably walkin’ abou’ wi’
tha’ an’ don’ know. Because […] the amount o’ people tha’ came up an’ says ‘Oh, Robin,
I’ve go’ i’ bu’ I don’ tell anybody.’ Tha’ was quite shockin’ actually the amount o’ people
tha’ told me tha’ had it an’ yet they wouldnae tell other people on the island.
R: Because they’ve, um, all been sharing?
Robin: Ay-ay. Because they’ve feared […] tha’ they would be singled ou’, you know? Soo
they chose to no’ to. […] If you’re in somebody’s hoose an’ you’re gonna use, […] you
infect somebody jus’ because you don’ want them to know […]. I had a boy who just started
injectin’ in the last five months in somebody’s hoose an’ I was talkin’ to him an’ he was
tellin’ me abou’ how he collects everybody’s filters on the island. An’ I was like ‘Have you
never heard of hepatitis C?!’ An’ he’s like ‘What’s that?’ So when I explained to him
wha’ hepatitis C was his face went white an’ he just collapsed intae a chair. An’ he told me
a number o’ things an’ some o’ the people he used wi’ an’ he asked ‘What percentage, you
reckon, tha’ I was havin’ hepatits C?’ An’ I was ‘Och, 90/95% chance you’ve ge’ hepatitis.
Because of some of the people tha’ you have wi’ an’ shared the wa’er an’ the spoons an’ the
filters.’ [11–12, 41–49]

To underline his argument, Robin gives the example of a young user, who, due to
a shortage of money or access to heroin, used to collect other people’s filters, unaware
of the high risk of catching a viral infection. This lack of awareness has also been
reported by a young female client, who sees high-risk practices, such as obtaining a
heroin injection out of used filters, rooted in a combination of different aspects. First,
she names habit-related desperation as a reason for taking part in a shared injection
that might be the only way someone can access heroin at certain times and will therefore accept an offer of this kind [Hannah, 7, 46–8, 3]. Similar to Robin, she also
points to a high level of unawareness amongst users exemplified by the fact that
decisively more users are unknowingly hepatitis C positive than have been tested.
Moreover, she argues that as a result of Shetland’s general wealth, many users look
physically well and healthy, which may obscure their infectious status. Besides, she
argues that people generally rely on the shared knowledge of only a small number of
users being hepatitis C positive. However, only these few people have actually under-

124

6

The Features and Descriptive Characteristics of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

gone medical tests and the actual infection rate is likely to be significantly higher.
This unawareness she views as particularly alarming against the background of
increasing levels of injecting drug use [9, 5–21]. Another female client, whose identity will not be revealed any further to protect her anonymity, tells how she caught
hepatitis C. She expresses her surprise about having caught the disease in spite of
always having injected first when sharing a syringe with her user group, of whom
everyone but her had been infected. She states to be somewhat at a loss with how she
could have gotten infected and concludes that the reason was probably contaminated
water, spoons, or filters, which also seem to have been shared in her group.

6.7.8.1

Conclusions on High-Risk Behaviour and Blood-Borne Infections

While no one reports the occurrence of HIV or other blood-borne infections
amongst intravenous drug users in Shetland, several interviewees speak about their
concerns with respect to the apparently high proportions of injecting drug users
infected with hepatitis C. Interviewees’ concern refers to both the extent of the
spread and users’ often very risky practices, which could enable the spread of the
virus. Participants describe the sharing of injecting paraphernalia, such as syringes,
needles, water, filters, and spoons or the reusing of filters in order to obtain a free
heroin injection out of the potentially contaminated waste product. With regard to
the latter, the restricted availability of and accessibility to heroin in Shetland might
aggravate the situation. The ignorance and unawareness with respect to sharing
injection equipment with hepatitis C positive users constitutes one major risk of
disease spreading. Furthermore, injectors, who are either ignorant as to their own
infectious status, or might conceal a positive status in order to avoid social sanctions such as ostracism, have been reported to be a further high-risk factor.
Consequently, the hepatitis C infection rates in Shetland are worryingly high due
to a combination of widespread unawareness, ignorance, and fear of social sanctions
amongst drug injectors.

6.7.9

Emergencies and Fatal Overdoses

Interviewees’ accounts regarding emergencies and overdoses in the context of
heroin use will now be presented and discussed, keeping in mind the high-risk
practices of intravenous users. All interviewed users agree on there not having been
a drug death that could be traced back to an overdose exclusively from heroin. One
man in his late 20s, who died some years ago of a lethal mixture of methadone and
alcohol, is repeatedly referred to [e.g. Hannah, 2, 40–43; Christian, 3, 23–25].
Several participants mention other people who have died from using both alcohol
and sedating drugs at the same time in the recent past [e.g. Rick, 3, 1–6; Oliver, 7,
35–39; Hannah, 2, 43–45; Gordon, 13, 1–2]. The occasional user Oliver presents

6.7 Nature and Extent of Heroin-Use-Associated Problems

125

an analytical perspective of the Shetland-specific social associations of a heroin
emergency that takes place within a group of users. His account appears to encapsulate the crucial aspects of this phenomenon that have emerged from the interviews. He states to know several people and to have heard of a further few who have
experienced serious drug overdoses but who have survived. He believes that only a
small number of people in situations of drug, and especially heroin overdoses, were
actually hospitalised, but the majority were rather revived by friends they had been
using with. In the anonymity of the urban mainland in contrast, he sees living or
dying after a life-threatening drug overdose to depend to a comparatively greater
degree on coincidences or luck, respectively. However, in Shetland users will not
only revive their mates out of charity but also to reduce the risk of being identified
as heroin or intravenous drug users, if an overdose were to become public [7–8,
25–29]. Oliver points out that
[…] when people are dying in your house from heroin kinna thing, you’ll be marked for life
then, up here. [8, 30–32]

According to his argumentation, this fear of being ‘marked for life’ might
lead fellow users to behave in ways that potentially increase the risk of death of
someone experiencing an overdose. Later on in the interview, he gives the example
of a person he knows of who overdosed and was pulled on to the street by his mates.
These afterwards called the ambulance and claimed not to know this person or any
of the contexts in order to protect their own safety and avoid police attention.
He states to only know one person more closely, who has had a non-fatal heroin
overdose when drunk and at the same time using heroin, as he mainly associates
with other recreational users, who normally use in controlled, modest ways.
R: Have you got any, have you had any other experiences of em- emergency situations?
Oliver (O): Aah, no’ really, I’ve I’ve heard of a few. Ah, somebody ODed jus’ bein’ dragged
into the street and then people, ah, phonin’ the ambulance an’ jus’ knowin’ nothin’ about it
and don’t kno’ him, you kno’. Somebody ODein’ an’ He lived. Tha’ tha’ was really because,
ah, they didn’t want like tha’ far this to kno’ this been goin’ on in this house, you kno’. Not
this house, I mean that house, you kno’? Ah, but, yeah, ’cos … most o’ the people I kno’ jus’
use a little sor’ o’, aah, I mean, I don’t have friends ODein’ all over the place or anythin’, you
kno’. None o’ my friends has ODed I don’t think, apart fae that guy who was drunk.
R: Yeah, yeah. Yeah. And then people rather, em, not phone the ambulance because their
name’s gonna be in the paper?
Oliver: Yeah, tha’s right. Or, obviously wi’ som’in’ like tha’ the police will get involved, you
kno’, an’ the police will be comin’ along askin’ awkward questions or maybe even turnin’ the
place over or som’in’, you kno’. I suppose. [21, 22–48]

Besides community-mindedness and associated charitable motivations, the
fear of social or legal sanctions apparently causes users to intensify watching out
for each other. However, it could also promote a fatal outcome if in a social setting
a drug user is experiencing an emergency and fellow users do not dare to call an
ambulance out of fear of being identified as engaging in socially unaccepted
behaviour. As has already been pointed out, the extent of heroin overdoses is also
controlled by the restricted availability and predominantly low quality of the
Shetland heroin.

126

6

6.7.10

The Features and Descriptive Characteristics of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

Summary and Conclusions Concerning
Heroin-Use-Associated Problems

At first glance, participants’ accounts appear to imply that the level of problems
associated with the heroin scene and generally heroin use in Shetland are low and
give little cause for concern, especially when compared to heroin scenes and heroin
use in an urban context. The majority of users have been reported to work rather than
engage in criminal activity in order to finance their heroin use. As only illegal involvement taking place amongst heroin users to a considerable extent, interviewees
mention dealing heroin and other drugs. Also, drug-related prostitution seems to play
an extremely minor role in Shetland. Shetland’s broad wealth and high employment
rates together with the increased social costs of deviant or illegal behaviour have been
named to account for rates of general and drug crime to be relatively low. A number
of participants have also assessed the levels of heavy, addictive heroin use to be fairly
low as a result of the limited supply. A greater proportion of addictive use is argued to
be found amongst heroin users who also deal the drug. They have been portrayed as
the users with the greatest possibility to cultivate a physical habit. With respect to the
high level of hepatitis C infections, many interviewees agree that the situation in
Shetland is quite concerning: The ignorance of many users regarding the risks of
infection, their own infectious status, and the disinclination to reveal their positive
status out of fear of social ostracism by other users or even the general public have led
to high infection rates. Therefore, and also because of the tightly restricted availability
and accessibility of heroin in Shetland, they might share injecting equipment with
others, without or despite knowing they are infectious. The fear of social or legal sanctions has also been illustrated to play a significant role with regard to drug and in
particular heroin-use-related emergency situations, such as overdoses. Many Shetland
users might refrain from calling an ambulance, if an emergency were to occur in a
group situation, out of fear of being identified as being involved with this stigmatised
and illegal drug. Hence, the specificity of the small, close-knit community seems in
most instances to primarily prevent severe socially and individually aversive tendencies from forming in the heroin scene. Still, as has just been outlined, in some respects
the opposite can also be the case and risk probabilities might even be heightened.
Furthermore, many participants allude to an array of rather drastic changes that the
heroin scene within and around Shetland has undergone in the past years. The shape
of these changes will be presented and analysed thoroughly in the following two
chapters about the internal structure and the historic developments of the subculture.

6.8

Availability, Quality, and Price of the Shetland Heroin

Implied in the past three subsections dealing with levels of addictive use, high-risk
behaviour, blood-borne viruses, and overdoses, the far-reaching and deep impact of
the limited availability of heroin in Shetland on the nature of the heroin subculture,

6.8

Availability, Quality, and Price of the Shetland Heroin

127

as well as users’ behaviour, has been alluded to. This impact will now be illuminated
and examined carefully.

6.8.1

Intermittent Supply

The majority of interviewees speak about the restricted availability of heroin in
Shetland as a significant location-specific aspect differentiating the island scene
fundamentally from scenes on the urban mainland of Britain. Whereas on the
mainland one can obtain not only heroin but also a wide variety of drugs ‘24/7’
[Mark, C, 2, 20–21], in Shetland different types of drugs seem to be regularly ‘out
of stock’. Therefore, the majority of heroin users have to come to terms with heroin
not always being readily available or accessible. The majority of interviewed users
describe the intermittent heroin supply as being characterised by phases of ‘steady
flow’ alternating with complete droughts, because – in contrast to the mainland – there
are only a few different people selling restricted amounts of the drug. Another
experienced user with a similar background as Mark cited above claims that in
urban Britain all one needs to do if they want to buy heroin is to stand at a phone box
and wait for a few minutes until someone arrives who will sell them the drug.
In Shetland, by contrast, such obvious heroin trade and supply have been argued
to be discouraged by the lack of anonymity and the strong presence of social
control, both contributing to the regulation of heroin-using patterns. In addition,
the geographically isolated location is repeatedly named as a major reason for
only limited amounts of heroin reaching the island. The occasional user Christian
explains the physical difficulties for dealers and users in importing and accessing
heroin. The isolated location is repeatedly illustrated as making the island unattractive
for many potential dealers as the efforts involved, for example, having to travel up
and needing to circumvent police surveillance and control on entering Shetland, are
perceived as outweighing the financial benefits to be gained. Consequently, according
to Christian, serious drug dealers are overall deterred from Shetland.
Christian (O): Aah, the the thing in Shetland is how difficult i’ is tae get stuff [heroin] intae
Shetland, which is […] like a physical barrier, ken, in the way of of people bein’ able to ge’
access to it. It’s, which is a good thing. An’ as well, it’s all the people tha’ I see here may
have concerted efforts to get here, ken? Obviously bother comin’ up, ken? So it kinna
keeps the, the riff-raff, ken, kinna keeps, ah, keeps like big bad drug dealers an’ stuff out.
[…] [14, 11–20]

At another point in his interview, Christian maintains that one would need to
move to the mainland of Britain to become a ‘proper addict’. In this context, he
describes two friends of his, who are ‘trying to be addicted to smack’ and put up
with living through the physical and emotional stress of withdrawals over and over
again rather than deciding to give up using up to the extent of physical addiction
[9, 6–21]. The restricted availability of heroin in Shetland resulting from a combination of factors has repeatedly been referred to as an external, physical control
counteracting levels of heavy and addictive consumption. However, the long-term

128

6

The Features and Descriptive Characteristics of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

user Philip (N) points out that this form of external control constitutes the only
reason why people’s patterns of heroin use do not escalate. As soon as these circumstances would cease to apply, many users would use as much as they could possibly
‘get their hands on’ [20, 21–23].

6.8.2

Availability Versus Accessibility

A number of participants express a clear distinction between heroin availability
and heroin accessibility. The recreational user Oliver speaks about periods when
the opiate is ‘apparently unavailable to everybody’ [7, 38–43]. This implies that
the bulk of Shetland users who depend on dealers are unable to obtain the drug,
while some are privileged enough to still have access to the desired and scarce
good. Those privileged ones have been explained to predominantly be dealers or
otherwise people who have close connections to dealers. For the ‘ordinary’ user,
heroin has been described as sometimes being easy and sometimes being difficult to
obtain [Patrick, 2, 14–18]. Estimates regarding the length of periods when no heroin is generally available range between 1–2 weeks and 4 months. One client even
claims to have access to heroin on about 200 out of 365 days of the year [Mona, 3,
20–24]. These divergences are most likely related to interviewees’ own connections
to dealers and their respective degree of active scene involvement.
Heroin has been illustrated to be particularly difficult to access in most areas
outside Lerwick, where the scene’s main base seems to be located and where interviewees in general state to purchase the drug. One client describes having been
heavily engaged in intravenous heroin use on the urban mainland and upon moving
to a small town in Shetland staying clean of heroin for a few years. However,
the client resumed using heroin regularly and habitually after moving to Lerwick
and beginning to socialise with other local users. Another client tells that the
opiate was unavailable in a different small Shetland town where they lived and that
one needed to pay a fortune for a taxi into Lerwick when wanting to buy heroin
outside the times the buses operated between the town and the capital (i.e. after late
afternoon).

6.8.3

External Control Through Intermittent Supply

Further to the consequences outlined above, the client Joanna states having noticed
that other heavy users she meets at the drugs project presently look healthier and
happier than at other times, which she ascribes to the current heroin drought [20,
29–32]. As previously mentioned, the irregular availability of the opiate has been
argued to ‘not be steady enough to have proper addicts’ or people who are ‘fullscale addicted’ to heroin [Christian, 2, 37–38; 4, 14–15]. Along these lines, several
interviewees, who had experience with habitual heroin consumption on the urban
mainland of Britain, explain that they can control their levels of use significantly

6.8

Availability, Quality, and Price of the Shetland Heroin

129

better in Shetland than in a city, simply because the drug is not as readily available.
Claire, for example, argues that every time she has lived on the mainland, she has
ended up developing a heroin habit and in order to control her use, she lives in
Shetland even though she would prefer to live ‘down south’ [7, 7–10].
Many interviewees welcome the controlling effects of the supply restrictions.
However, some of the heavier users complain about the withdrawal troubles they
experience as a result of the constant to and fro between being on and off heroin.
‘It’s just a whole different world altogether chasing a drug habit’ in Shetland compared to urban Britain, where heroin is usually available round the clock every day.
Otherwise, one would be informed if heroin were to run out early enough to make
certain arrangements for the imminent drought rather than facing it unprepared
[Mark, C, 2, 22–25]. The client Lilly observes that when heroin gets scarce or runs
out, users, who typically spend their time secluded in their own or their mates’
homes, ‘come out of the woodwork’ in order to organise ways to cope with their
involuntary withdrawal situation. Lilly maintains that if heroin is available on the
island, one can walk through town and not bump into any ‘smackhead’ and if no
heroin is on the Shetland market one can see users every two steps. Consequently,
she sets up the equation that ‘the more people you [someone involved in the heroin
scene, who thus knows other users] see, the less smack there is’ [12, 1–15].

6.8.4

Coping Strategies to Compensate Restricted Availability

An array of coping strategies to manage the unpredictable heroin market has been
described by interviewees.
Interviewees repeatedly describe how habituated or heavy, in particular intravenous,
users seem to use speed as a substitute when no heroin is available.
Hannah (C): Umm, I mean, from wha’ I can tell now, a lo’ o’ the heroin addicts or ex-heroin
addicts at the moment, from what I can tell, are injectin’ speed. [9, 34–36]

The interviewee refers to users, who involuntarily withdraw from heroin in
phases when the opiate is not available or accessible, as ‘ex-addicts at the moment’.
The expression alludes to the substantial impact of external circumstances determining to a decisive degree if certain people are ‘addicts’ or ‘ex-addicts’ rather than
them actively deciding for or against their patterns of drug use. This citation fits in
with Philip’s (N) above statement that if people could, they would use as much
heroin as they ‘could get their hands on’. Habituated users have been portrayed to
‘go on speed binges for weeks on end simply because no heroin is available’ [Ben,
N, 18, 34–36]. The difference in psychoactive effects between the sedating opiate
heroin and the stimulating amphetamine speed makes this behaviour appear bizarre
to several participants, such as the long-term user and client Rick. He underlines his
lack of understanding of how anybody could go from the ‘anti-anxious drug’ heroin
to amphetamine, ‘the most irritant, wander-maniac drug there is’ [14–15, 51–6].
Joanna (C), previously a heavy intravenous heroin user, also expresses her

130

6

The Features and Descriptive Characteristics of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

incomprehension with respect to the practice of replacing a sedative with a stimulant, and reports that it was explained that speed relieves the severity of withdrawal
symptoms [30, 33–39].
The trend to substitute one drug for another, in phases when the desired drug is
temporarily inaccessible, appears to be a commonly employed strategy to balance
the intermittent availability of illegal substances. Several interviewees state that
they and others they know started using heroin in times when cannabis was unavailable
[e.g. Justin, C, 1, 14–22; Christian, O, 5, 34–38].
The occasional user Christian (O) suggests that a great part of the reason for the,
in his eyes, ‘weird’ phenomenon of people normally injecting heroin resorting to
intravenous speed is that they are more addicted to the ritual of intravenous
administration than the actual substance [2–3, 46–51].
According to many participants, replacing intravenous heroin with intravenous
speed use constitutes a coping strategy adopted by a great number of heavy users to
manage phases of heroin droughts. In addition, other forms of (self-) medication or
substitution also appear to play a decisive role, such as obtaining prescription drugs,
such as the opiate dihydrocodeine or tranquilising benzodiazepines, legally or on
the black market [e.g. Ben, 15, 27–34]. Several participants also emphasise the
significant influx the drugs project experiences when no heroin is available, as many
habituated users seek methadone prescriptions in order to avoid undergoing ‘cold
turkey’, that is, withdrawal without medical counteraction or alleviation. Patrick
(C), for instance, is representative of this trend, buying prescription drugs on the
black market as well as seeking methadone prescriptions at the drugs project in
times of heroin scarcity [4, 39–51]. The occasional user Christian points out that
substitute prescribing doctors should be aware of ‘what the scene is about’, that so
to speak ‘people are on and off every fortnight’ and merely use methadone to bridge
the periods of dearth until heroin becomes available again, instead of genuinely
wanting to give up their opiate use [4, 10–29]. Hence, he argues that a methadone
prescription in this context is only used as a crutch rather than a treatment making
it, in his opinion, a waste of resources.

6.8.5

Quality and Price

Apart from the restricted availability, the quality and price of the Shetland heroin
are said to have a substantial impact on the structure of the subculture, as well as
shaping patterns of use. While all interviewees agree that the price is excruciatingly
high, the quality, by contrast, is typically described as regularly being very low.
Users who have had experience of using heroin intensively in an urban context
particularly express the massive difference in quality between the overall standard
of Shetland and mainland urban heroin. Robin (C), who over many years has used
heroin intravenously in different British cities asserts
[…] And the quali’y up here is pathetic! An’ I mean really pathetic. I couldnae use another
word for it, it really is pathetic! [4, 10–11]

6.8

Availability, Quality, and Price of the Shetland Heroin

131

Mark, with a similar using background to Robin, complains that when he once
took a using break of several months and decided to use for the first time again,
he bought a ½ g to share with a friend. Since his tolerance was low at that point he
expected to be ‘comatose’ with the injection of a ¼ of a g. However, he claims that
the drug was diluted to such an extent that he could not feel any effect at all.
[…] Phh, i’ didnae affect me in any way whatsoever. Did no’ affect me. To this day I’m still
waitin’ on it, that’s how shi’ i’ was. [3, 31–33]

Most users are deterred from importing heroin from the mainland, since the
effort of travelling up and down by boat and the risk of being detected when
returning with the drug are often perceived as outweighing the gain. Consequently,
the small number of people who are prepared to accept the risk involved in
dealing heroin in a small market such as Shetland enjoy a monopoly. The Shetland
heroin market has been described as being an absolute seller’s market where
very low quality heroin can be sold at a very high price [Duncan, C, 1, 28–29].
The price interviewees report having to pay for a gram of heroin amounts to 100
GBP, whereas one could get the same amount in London or Edinburgh for 50 or 60
GBP [e.g. Oliver, O, 9, 5–12]. Even though the quality is described as being
frequently low, and the price on the general market as always high, users have been
said to be so desperate as to accept the adverse circumstances and still buy the drug
[Oliver, O, 17, 15–21; Mona, C, 2, 18–30]. The attribute desperate might primarily
refer to dependent users, who feel a strong urge for the drug. In the following citation, Rick (C) expresses his terror about users who are still prepared to buy heroin
even if it is so strongly and badly diluted that it will not dissolve properly anymore.
Rather than not using, certain users would nevertheless inject it into their veins.
He argues that some users take such risks, as due to the remote location of Shetland,
no better heroin may be available.
Rick (C): […] most o’ the stuff that’s gonna end up here in the hands that it’s fallin’ into,
it’s really really terrible terrible gear an’ it’s gettin’ cut by people who don’t know what
they’re doin’. You cannae, you know, you cannae ignore the fact that we’re livin’ in this
really geographically far-off island, um, an’ people are gonna, um, ken, the stuff people are
cookin’ up an’ takin’ i’ intae the barrel an’ it’s like corrodin’ into chrystals an’ stuff inside
an’ people were puttin’ i’ back in an’ re-cookin’ it back up wi’ maer citric – fuckin’ madness!!
Ken? People are like lookin’ at the shit in barrels an’ they’re still puttin’ into themselves.
One guy go’ septicaemia through a lo’ o’ injection […]. [7, 19–28]

On the other hand, Robin (C), previously heavily involved in urban heroin scenes
in different British cities, stresses that one does not see the same desperation in the
Shetland heroin users’ eyes, which he traces back to, for one, heroin on the island
being less strong than in urban areas, and furthermore, the opiate only being available
on an intermittent basis, which gives users a regular ‘break from it’ [9, 26–38].
Additionally, several interviewees state that they, as well as a considerable number
of others, are not willing to pay a disproportionately high price for the drug at times
when the quality is particularly low, as they then perceive the costs to outweigh the
benefits. Alternatively, as has already been indicated in the context of heroin accessibility, some people appear to be able to obtain the drug before it gets cut, that is,
diluted with cheap substances in order to increase the profit margin. However, in

132

6

The Features and Descriptive Characteristics of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

order to ‘get it before they dance all over it’, as expressed by the yearlong user
Helen (C) [2, 21–26], one needs to enjoy the privilege of belonging to a dealer’s
immediate social circle, such as close friends or partners. Moreover, Helen points
out that the quality of the Shetland heroin has not always been of such low quality,
but rather was of ‘dynamite’ potency in former times, an assertion supported by
others. Rick (C), for example, avers that the quality has become subject to the
significantly increased demand for the opiate, which Shetland dealers have only
recently come upon and thus started taking advantage of the potential profits of trading heroin commercially. Still, in 2001, he reports, there was a heroin purity of
nearly 50%, which he remembers from the reported arrest of a person dealing heroin
[7, 19–21]. Several participants mention the decreased quality of the opiate, as the
Shetland heroin market does not provide a variety of dealers who supply the island
at any given time [e.g. Oliver, O, 17, 15–21]. Rick argues that when less people
used heroin, and those who did so used it in a more cautious fashion, the purity of
the drug was considerably higher [7, 37–41].
While the mainlanders in particular complain about the generally weak potency
and high price of the street heroin, several interviewees welcome the regulating
aspects, such as the reduced probability of overdoses, of severe physical addiction,
and a greater ability for the individual user to keep patterns of heroin use under
control. As one long-term user pointed out: Usually ‘you’d have to take about five
or so grams to overdose and then you’d be lucky, if you’d overdosed’ [Gordon, 12,
43–48]. The occasional user Oliver suggests that the high financial costs of the
Shetland heroin might ‘sort of keep the lid on’ the potential of heroin-use-associated
problems to escalate [9, 10–12]. Apart from this control mechanism, some users
also point to the dangers involved in the ever-changing potency. It has been argued
that users generally act on the assumption of low-potency heroin. However, on some
occasions the potency is unexpectedly higher than usual, which bears the risk of
unwanted overdoses and emergencies. The changing quality can complicate users’
estimations of how much heroin they can use without risking an overdose. However,
not every user will behave as cautiously as, for example, Oliver, who states that he
usually tries a small amount and awaits the initial effect before he uses more [25,
47–51]. Earlier in his interview, he also explains that if the quality was ‘reasonable’,
he would use a bit more, maybe 2 or 3 days in a row. Moreover, his respective
mood, together with the drug’s high expense and its quality, regulated the extent of
his overall occasional and controlled heroin intake [14, 34–48]. Also, with regard to
the typically low quality of the Shetland heroin, several interviewees suggest an
increased tendency to inject. The client Helen argues that one needs to inject to feel
the heroin at all and therefore refuses to smoke [2, 49–51]. This line of thought has
also been put forward by other heavier users. Otherwise, interviewees explain that
once they developed a habit, the drug became too expensive for them to smoke;
accordingly they started injecting to save money [e.g. Aaron, C, 3, 23–29]
The quality of the most recently available heroin has repeatedly been described as
comparatively good, for the first time in many months [e.g. Angus, N, 10, 20–26].

6.8

Availability, Quality, and Price of the Shetland Heroin

6.8.6

133

Summary and Conclusions Concerning Availability,
Quality, and Price

The vast majority of interviewed users report the restricted availability and accessibility, as well as the frequently low quality and the high price of the Shetland
heroin, as substantially shaping and characterising the Shetland heroin scene. While
several of the heavier users complain about these conditions, many interviewees
assess them as a welcome external control that regulates the extent and gravity of
heroin use and related problems. Interviewees argue that apart from the dealers and
possibly their immediate social circle, hardly any Shetland heroin user has access to
sufficient quantities of heroin to develop and maintain a physical habit. Heroin appears
to be available on the Shetland drug market with intervals of a few days to a few months.
Dependent users need to arrange ways to physically and psychologically cope
with the regularly recurring heroin droughts. Reported coping strategies include
replacing heroin with speed. Intravenous heroin use often seems to be substituted
with intravenous speed use. Explanations suggested for the surprising replacement
of the sedating opiate with the stimulating amphetamine include: relieving
withdrawal symptoms, the Shetland-specific tendency to substitute one substance
with another at times of unavailability and dependency on the injecting ritual that is
partly viewed as greater than the actual drug addiction. Furthermore, participants
report observing a significantly increased inflow of methadone-seeking clients to
the drugs project at times of heroin scarcity.
A similar mixture of views is also expressed with respect to the predominantly
low quality of Shetland heroin. Interviewees explain that the opiate is typically
diluted with cutting agents, often to a high degree in order to increase the profitability
of the drug sale. Even though the psychoactive potency is considerably weakened,
many users still buy the cut drug as the few people supplying heroin in Shetland
enjoy a monopoly: Users either have to buy their own drugs on the mainland or
otherwise accept the conditions in Shetland. According to participants’ accounts,
many seem to have come to terms with the Shetland situation of ‘a seller’s market’.
The occasional high purity of Shetland heroin is mentioned as being a complicating
factor regarding appropriate dosage. Thus, the risk of accidentally overdosing is
increased, since many users expect the heroin to be rather weak and might, in cases
of unexpected higher quality, use more than their bodies are able to metabolise. In
addition, it has been suggested that the rate of people injecting heroin is increased
by the frequently poor quality that some people compensate by administering the
drug intravenously.
Overall, interviewees’ accounts seem to suggest that the Shetland-specific
conditions contribute to the control and regulation of the heroin scene to a great
extent. Still, these circumstances also appear to create certain risks and dangers.
However, on balance the increased risks appear to be perceived as carrying less
weight than the regulating, protecting consequences.

134

6.9
6.9.1

6

The Features and Descriptive Characteristics of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

Patterns of Heroin Use
Common Routes of Administration:
From Smoking to Injecting?

Principally, all participants who speak about routes of administering heroin correspondingly describe a major increase in injecting within the past few years. The
general increase in intravenous drug use has already been mentioned. According to
the analysis of the interviews, most people tended to ingest the opiate by smoking
and to a lesser degree snorting until approximately the turn of the millennium.
However, since then the proportion of heroin injectors compared to smokers or
snorters, various users present as having steadily grown [e.g. Joanna, 18, 47–54].
Interviewees assert that nowadays the majority of heroin users inject. One participant
guesses the proportion to have risen up to as high as 80% [Robin, C, 11, 47].
However, the overall proportion tends to be difficult to estimate since participants’
perspectives always depend on their respective user contacts, experiences, and
knowledge. Still, a shift from a dominance of smoking to now injecting has been
reported by virtually every interviewed user who speaks about the topic. Dealers
have recurrently been portrayed as being especially prone to injecting. Many regularly and less regularly consuming interviewees express their surprise about who
and how many people they know, or have heard of, who have at some point revealed
themselves to be using heroin intravenously. This situation is described by the
occasional user Oliver in the following citation.
[…] I don’ kno’ how many people do it, bu’ I think there’s quite a lot. I I think, jus’ havin’
conversations wi’ people, you kno’. And … surprisingly discoverin’ that people you’ve
never dreamt before would be jaggin’ up, are actually doin’ it. [13, 50–14, 4]

According to a number of interviewed users, the shift towards injecting
mainly refers to the use of heroin but also includes other drugs. Speed also
seems to be injected by many [e.g. Joanna, 18, 47–55]. Hannah (C), previously heavily involved in intravenous heroin use and the heroin scene, estimates
that hundreds of people now inject both heroin and other drugs, particularly
amphetamines. She articulates her concern with respect to the problem of ‘needle addiction’ that she observes to be spreading rapidly amongst Shetland’s
drug users [9, 29–38].
Mark (C), similar to other users who have arrived from urban Britain, declares
that virtually every heroin user he knew in the city injected the drug. He argues
that in the course of the economic recession, and the increase of addictive heroin
use, many users who previously smoked turned to injecting in order to save money
[5, 21–31]. The descriptions of the overall shift from smoking to injecting in
Shetland by Mark and other interviewees agree with their accounts of the changes
they witnessed in British cities. Hence, it may be that with respect to routes of

6.9 Patterns of Heroin Use

135

administration, the drug use trend3 in Shetland has begun to adjust to the urban
British trend.

6.9.2

Polydrug Use

Interviewees convey the impression that on the whole Shetlanders often consume
more than a single type of drug, including alcohol, on one occasion. The regular
user James (N), for example, states that intravenously consumed heroin/cocaine
cocktails represent his favourite drug combination.
Shetland drug users have additionally been illustrated to substitute their usual
drug of choice with other substances according to the respective availability on the
Shetland drug market. Along these lines, Claire (C) points to the regularly interrupted
accessibility of most illegal drugs in Shetland. Therefore, she points out that many
drug users consume heroin on 1 day, Valium the next, and speed the day after, in
spite of the drugs’ differing psychoactive effects [4, 40–48].
The occasional user Isaac emphasises that most people in his group of predominantly recreational users would typically not solely use heroin at one time but also other
drugs, such as cannabis [8, 25–36]. With respect to alcohol and heroin, most users appear
to keep the two substances distinctly apart due to the intensified danger of a respiratory
arrest when mixing the mutually enhancing effects of the two sedatives. Still, Gordon
(C) points out that some people are nonetheless willing to take this risk [13, 4–9].
The Shetland man Angus (N) suggests that due to the restricted availability of all
illicit substances in Shetland, the same extreme extents of mixed drug use are not
possible on the island as on the mainland [1, 47–2, 13]. Nonetheless, many users
like to mix drugs, like James cited above [N, 1, 20–21].

6.9.3

Excessiveness

Interviewees generally describe how heroin used to be excluded from the widespread
and common patterns of excessive substance use applying to alcohol and recreational drugs, such as cannabis, ecstasy, and amphetamines. However, participants
recurrently declare this to have changed over the past 3–4 years. They describe
the heroin scene as previously having been of a small and extremely controlled,
underground nature with excessive or extreme use not being tolerated. Hence, its

3
Trend is defined as ‘the temporarily measurable course of a development in a specific, quantitatively in- or decreasing and/or qualitative direction. From a economic or social science perspective,
trends are changes in the value system and behavioural structure of society. In market research,
trend refers to the changes and developments of consumer behaviour. […]’ (SDI Research 2009).

136

6

The Features and Descriptive Characteristics of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

occurrence – especially in public – appears to have constituted a rather rare exception.
Several interviewees explain that with the relatively recent expansion of heroin use
and the increased number of diverse users, extreme forms of heroin use have become
more frequent, though still tending to take place in secrecy and not publicly visible.
A number of interviewed users express their surprise at the fact that no explicitly
heroin-related death has yet happened [e.g. Rick, C, 2, 22–3, 15; Christian, O, 3,
26–27]. As has already been pointed out, the intensity and extent of heroin use
always depends on the availability of the opiate on the Shetland drug market [Angus,
N, 17, 50–18, 11].

6.9.4

Christmas Binges

Some users speak about an annual phase of generally increased, more extreme and
risky alcohol and drug use around Christmas and New Year, lasting for about
2 months from December to January.4 The long-term using Shetlander Angus (N)
maintains that over the past few Christmases, heroin had been included in this binge
phase due to the opiate being available in greater quantities than before [17, 11–15].
He himself states to have had ‘a bit of a binge time at Christmas time’ and ‘ended
up getting quite a bit of a habit’, which he counteracted by attending a 5-week
substitution program at the drugs project [4, 45–51].
From the analysis of the interviews, one might infer the yearly recurrence of a
phase of intensified substance use round about Christmas time – possibly in former
times merely alcohol related, later expanding to include recreational drugs, and
relatively recently also heroin. Whether the extent would allow for speaking about
a general ‘Christmas heroin binge’ and how many and which groups of users
participate cannot be concluded from this information. Still, the suggestion of a
Christmas heroin binge alone indicates a significantly increased prevalence of
heroin use on the island.

6.10

The Shetland Heroin Scene Compared to Heroin Scenes
on the Urban Mainland

Whereas numerous Shetland-specific aspects or aspects that distinguish the island
heroin scene from scenes on the urban mainland have thus far been illuminated,
participants also describe fundamental similarities. The regularly and partly heavily
using Shetlander James (N) stresses on the one hand the distinctions, such as that

4

A local drugs worker states that ‘it’s common for Shetlanders including drug users to go on a major
binge from end of November until end of January. They’re mixing large quantities of drugs, don’t
sleep, are less careful with IV use and are often on the verge of drug induced psychosis due to large
quantities of coke, excessive partying and worrying about the police’ (Stallwitz 2007, p. 13).

6.11

Summary of the Recent Transitions

137

he perceives Shetlanders to use more out of fun than despair, that is, to deal with
socio-economic or emotional hardships. Counteracting despair he regards as a more
common motivation in city areas. He generally views the island’s heroin scene to be
less shaped by problems, such as blood-borne diseases and socio-economic deprivation, than scenes in urban Britain. Still, with regard to the overall characteristics, he
sees the Shetland subculture as being similar to other, including urban, subcultures
[2, 28–48]. Other participants, including Duncan and Angus, both long-term users
with years of heroin use in the scope of urban Scottish drug scenes, outline the resemblances in developments they have observed with respect to the Shetland heroin subculture and subcultures in Scottish cities. Angus explains that the Shetland subculture
had first existed in the form of a small, clearly arranged underground group of
selected users that at one point ‘exploded’ to a growing commercial scene.
R: Can you describe how it has changed in the last few years?
Angus: Well, it’s just more an’ more people tha’ have go’ into it. I, I see it very very similar
to when I lived in Aberdeen, when I first started to ge’ into heroin in Aberdeen. I mean, i’
was like quite a small group to begin with an’ it just grew an’ grew. It was just like an explosion, you know, ken. I’ was just everyone started to ge’ into it an’ the crack came on the go
as well. Bu’ crack has never really taken off in Shetland – yet. [11, 35–44]

Angus and other participants, especially those with longstanding experience of
heroin use both in Shetland and in urban Britain, argue that the development of the
heroin use trend in Shetland is taking a very similar direction to that in urban
Scotland, with a delay of 10 or 15 years. While heroin scenes in urban Scotland
‘exploded’ in the late 1980s, that is, expanded and took a commercialised course, a
similar tendency has been reported to be observable on the Shetland Islands since
the turn of the millennium. This similarity could indicate that the Scottish heroin
use trend might now manifest itself in Shetland, though with a certain delay. This
idea will be scrutinised thoroughly at later stages of this book.

6.11

Summary of the Recent Transitions

This chapter concentrated on analysing and giving an outline of the main features
and characteristics of the Shetland heroin scene as presented by the interviewed
users. Participant accounts hint, time and again, at an array of substantial changes
and transformations the island heroin subculture has undergone in recent years.
Overall, participants seem to agree that 2000–2001 marked a turning point. Some
users refer to this turning point as an ‘explosion’ concerning the size and extent of
the Shetland heroin scene. This ‘explosion’, as described by interviewees, involved
a significant increase in users from a wide range of socio-economic backgrounds,
including fishermen and oil workers as well as people with responsible posts at
banks or the islands’ council. Together with an increased number and variety of
people using heroin, many interviewed users also state having noticed a considerable increase in injecting of illicit drugs in general and of heroin in particular. Along
with significantly grown heroin consumption, participants state a rise in levels of

138

6

The Features and Descriptive Characteristics of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

addictive and extreme heroin-using patterns and of blood-borne viruses. On balance,
participants’ accounts suggest a relative adjustment of the Shetland heroin scene to
scenes typical on the urban mainland of Britain. On this basis, it could be concluded
that the subculture is adopting characteristics of commercialisation and urbanisation, embedded, however, in the specific socio-economic and geographic conditions
of the specific Shetland setting. The manifestation, nature, and effects of the transitional processes will receive thorough analytical attention in the following Chaps. 7
and specifically 8.

References
SDI Research. (2009). Trend. Retrieved June 12, 2009, from http://www.sdi-research.at/lexikon/
trend.html
Stallwitz, A. (2007). Heroin use in Shetland from the perspective of different local professionals.
Therapeutic Communities, 28(3), 256–272.

Chapter 7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene
in Shetland

7.1

Introduction

The previous chapter presented, analysed and interpreted interviewees’ accounts in
the context of the features, shape and nature of the Shetland heroin scene. On the
basis of these accounts, the aim was to construct a picture of the subculture’s characteristics and manifestation from as objective and realistic a point of view as possible. If, for the purpose of illustration, the Shetland heroin subculture were pictured
as a large, rambling house, the perspective conveyed in the previous chapter would
correspond to the meticulous and all-comprehending observations of an imaginary,
uninvolved, neutral viewer, who holds the supernatural ability to see and be aware
of each and every differentiated detail of the outside of the building simultaneously.
These observations represent the scene’s form and nature in all its descriptive,
potentially visible, and countable features. While the preceding chapter aimed to
portray the outside of the house, the following section will focus on the images that
present themselves to this observer when entering the building and exploring and
scrutinising its many levels, rooms and every existing spot and corner of the inside.
In addition to numerous rooms, the observer will encounter the abundance of their
respective facilities, furniture and equipment. However, this symbol will not be perfected or taken on any further, as its intention is merely to exemplify the theoretical
and epistemological foundation of the reconstructed interviews. Furthermore, it
needs to be emphasised again that the presented viewpoints in this book neither
claim to be complete nor to present ‘absolute truth’. They constitute a synthesis of
interviewees’ shared and partly individual realities and in their selection and presentation form a reconstruction of a reality as perceived and developed by the author on
the basis of a most thorough and comprehensive analysis of each interview. Despite
the level of depth, breadth and complexity, the reality conveyed by the author ultimately
embodies a subjective perspective.

A. Stallwitz, The Role of Community-Mindedness in the Self-Regulation of Drug
Cultures: A Case Study from the Shetland Islands, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3861-4_7,
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

139

140

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

In the following, the internal structure and make-up of the Shetland heroin
subculture as illustrated by interviewees will be presented. The section will begin
by introducing and describing different types and groups of local heroin users and
their respective positions and levels of involvement in the overall subcultural network. Subsequently, specific consumption and supply behaviours, including related
communal and individual behavioural norms, rules and rituals, will lead on to complex concepts, such as the predominant mainstream mentality of the scene both as
specific to Shetland and compared to the ‘typical’ urban heroin scene. An array of
location-specific aspects apparently associated with the scene’s internal structure
and its manifestations will be introduced. This provides an explanatory framework
according to which the culture’s particularities can be interpreted. The attempt will
be undertaken to provide as comprehensive an image of the subculture’s internal
network as possible. Still, this image will certainly not be complete or reflect an
absolute reality but represents an analytic extract of all interview citations selected as
relevant by the author. While on some facets, detailed and differentiated information
by several interviewees is available, the accounts of other aspects are vaguer and can
therefore only be represented in a comparatively superficial and general style.

7.2

A Subculture of Diverse User Types and Groups

Before being in the position to comprehend the internal network and workings of
the Shetland heroin subculture, one needs to obtain a notion of the players, who are
to differing degrees actively or passively involved. Interviewees apply a wide range
of categorisations in order to define the respective nature of the different types of
users and user groups, which are presented in the following. These include dimensions such as hidden versus obvious heroin use and socio-economic integration
versus marginalisation. Moreover, participants give details about heavy, employed,
unemployed, and extreme consumers from Shetland and the British mainland, as
well as about recreational, occasional, country and female users and user units
(groups of varying sizes). After the introduction of each specific user group, interviewees belonging to this subdivision are described and directly or indirectly quoted.
This way the diverse fragments that the overall heroin scene in Shetland comprises
are exemplified concretely.

7.2.1

Integrated Versus Marginalised Users and User Groups

Kay, having used occasionally for almost two decades mainly in Shetland, stresses
that local heroin consumers come from all kinds of socio-economic backgrounds.
Already, previously, it has been stated that heroin use in Shetland is not restricted to
socially marginalised, unemployed or eccentric individuals and groups but also
includes educated people in well-respected jobs. However, Kay argues that

7.2

A Subculture of Diverse User Types and Groups

141

Shetlanders prefer to associate heroin use with social outsiders rather than accepting
that someone not categorically different from themselves would engage in such
stigmatised, criminal, foreign, and therefore unsettling behaviour. As a consequence,
she argues that the image of a heroin user held by large parts of the general public
would correspond to the stereotype of an outcast or even criminal.
[…] it [heroin use] crosses the whooole, the whole spectrum of society. Bu’ I think people
would rather see this stereotypical user. I think, um, an’ I think this is true for here - people
don’t want to identify their own type of people as bein’ heroin users. From my experience
there’s all sorts of people. Sometimes very clever, smart people are takin’ heroin, too. It’s
not just stupid people. [2, 39–51]

The view of heroin users originating from both socio-economically integrated as
well as marginalised positions is not limited to Kay but shared by a substantial
number of interviewed users, who exemplify this statement by their personal
accounts [e.g. Rick, C, 9, 36–10, 22]. The differentiation between socio-economically
integrated and socio-economically marginalised heroin users or heroin user groups
found in the scientific literature typically involves the presence or absence of the
following three features: Employment or further education, permanent housing and
contacts to non-drug users (cf. Sect. 2.2 of Part I). On the basis of the presence or
absence of these three characteristics, interviewees’ levels of social integration are
also identified in this study. With respect to socio-economic backgrounds and individual traits, 11 interviewees represent what could be described as average, socially
integrated Shetlanders, who study at college or university on the mainland or work
in a regular job, live in their own or rented accommodation, and entertain social
relationships and friendships also with non-heroin users. Patterns of heroin consumption range from occasional to habitual use and four are clients at the Shetland
drugs project. Specifically these comprise: Oliver (O), Christian (O), Kay (O),
Joanna (C), Angus (N), Ben, (N), Leonard, (N), Patrick (C), Justin (C), Oscar
(C) and Hannah (C) (also see Table 3.1). The remaining 13, some temporarily,
others long-term unemployed, vary regarding their levels of social integration and
their physical and psychological condition. Some report physical as well as mental
fitness, some report suffering from psychological symptoms, such as emotional
stress, some from Hepatitis C or other physical diseases or ailments. While approximately four clients and one non-client live in temporary accommodation, which in
Shetland means comparatively comfortable, well-equipped apartments for one or
more persons, the remainder, about 20 interviewees, report living in their privately
rented houses and flats. Clients generally exhibit a high level of social integration,
especially compared to ‘typical’ urban heroin using clients.

7.2.2

Hidden Versus Obvious Users

According to participant accounts, the heroin users on the island commonly undertake
substantial efforts to conceal their engagement in their socially disapproved of
heroin-related activities. Hence, to estimate the actual number of users seems virtually

142

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

impossible. Even people, who use themselves, assert that they would be surprised at
who and how many actually use the opiate [e.g. Christian, O, 15, 16–22]. Still,
several of the interviewed users point out that secrecy endeavours towards heroin
applies to most but not every person using heroin in Shetland. As has already been
mentioned in the context of the Shetland heroin scene’s visibility, there appears to
be a number of individuals who are identifiable heroin users or ‘junkies’ according
to their outward appearance and ‘junkie style’ of behaviour. Nonetheless, as pointed
out by, for example, the occasional user Christian, heroin use and related behaviour
predominantly take place ‘behind closed doors’ and only a few known individuals
consume heroin in a noticeable, destructive way [15, 23–24].
A considerable number of the interviewed clients, and one of the regularly using
non-clients, exemplify Christian’s argument by maintaining that virtually the
whole of Shetland knows about their heroin use. As a consequence, a few state that
they do not worry about anyone noticing their use or whether the author would treat
their interview confidentially or not as the public would be informed anyway.
On some occasions, clients explain that their involvement with heroin had
become communal knowledge. For some, the reason was having been caught with
heroin by the police and consequently been reported in the Shetland Times, the local
weekly newspaper. Others state that they could have been observed entering or leaving the Shetland drugs project or otherwise that word of mouth could have spread
the information. Analysing these accounts, one notices that of all the participants,
predominantly clients state to have been publicly revealed as heroin users. Various
reasons have been offered by interviewees to explain this imbalance. People, who
had already held a socio-economically marginalised position within the Shetland or
Lerwick community, might be less deterred from seeking help from the drugs project
than others, who might fear putting their job or social network at risk. Therefore,
they might avoid drugs treatment, which they would have sought if not for the fear
of social sanctions. Those, whose opiate use had already been revealed publicly in
some way, appear to be considerably less anxious with respect to being seen entering
or leaving the drugs project building.
A few participants assert that because the whole island is informed about their
heroin use, the chances of finding employment are very limited. One long-term user
in his mid-30s maintains that he has tried many times to get a job but always failed
as a consequence of his reputation [I, C, 14, 1–20]. Another interviewee shows a
certain feeling of indifference when affirming that people regard them as a heroin
addict anyway, and therefore they no longer worry about the disgrace associated
with heroin.
I (C): […] Well, the stigma attached to it [heroin] doesn’t really bother me now, because
most people look at me as, they know tha’ I’m kinna, go’ a heroin addiction, got a heroin
problem. [17, 16–19]

The categorisation into hidden or obvious users or user groups touches on aspects
of Shetland’s social structure and associated behaviour rather than on downright
individual or group characteristics. A phenomenon that has already repeatedly
surfaced implicitly or explicitly also appears again in this context in a central

7.2

A Subculture of Diverse User Types and Groups

143

position: the stigmatisation of socially deviant, communally unacceptable behaviour
such as heroin use and supply. The more a person fears to lose as a consequence of
others (e.g. the police, the general public, employers, family, friends or the partner)
finding out about their involvement with heroin as a user, supplier or dealer, the
more secretively they tend to handle this subject. This secrecy seems to play a
fundamental and very dominant role with regard to the organisation and structuring
of the Shetland heroin subculture.

7.2.3

Heavy Users

One might automatically associate habitual and/or heavy heroin use, predominantly
or even exclusively, with the above-described socially marginalised users. However,
from interviewees’ accounts, an estimation of whether this group of users even constitutes the majority of Shetland heroin users does not seem to be justified. The
spectrum of different participant perceptions regarding the distribution of heavy,
habitual, and recreational and occasional users within the totality of all heroin
consumers has already been presented in the context of heroin use-related problems
at the end of the preceding chapter. At this point, the intention is to introduce the
general group of heavy users, their individual subgroups and some of their respective
characteristics. The most obvious distinction between groups appears to be employed
and unemployed.

7.2.3.1

Heavy Employed Users: Living on the Edge

Corresponding to many participants, the proportion of regular and intense heroin
consumers in Shetland is considerable. On balance, this group appears to live a life
largely integrated in the Shetland community, with permanent accommodation,
their own flats, stable social relationships (including people not using heroin), and
tend by and large to comply with their respective work requirements. The long-term
user Gerry (C) explains that in his opinion employment status does not play a decisive role in whether people in Shetland start using heroin. Nevertheless, he argues,
work exerts a structuring, stabilising function with regard to the progression of
someone’s addictive use. Gerry emphasises that when comparing employed and
unemployed regular users, the development of a seriously problematic, dependent
pattern of both heroin use and lifestyle is significantly intensified in the latter group.
In this context, he describes the dynamics resulting from the interplay of unemployment related lack of daily structure and boredom, the addictive properties of heroin
and a way of life centred on acquiring the financial means sufficient to fund one’s
heroin habit. As a contrast, he illustrates the cycle of habitually using employees
who are able to integrate their heroin use in their working day. They might use, for
example, the lunch break to purchase and consume a sufficient amount of heroin to
maintain their working fitness and then use again after they have finished work.

144

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

R: Were that rather people being employed or unemployed or
Gerry (C): I ‘ink both. I think both. I ‘ink it didnae really ma’er whether people were
employed or no’. I ‘ink the ones tha’ were, the ones tha’ were employed were managin’ to
kinna maintain their habit an’ continue to work. Maybe they were, they’d maybe come an’
score at lunch time, just a little that’ll manage to keep them goin’ till tea time an’ finish
work an’ then they’ll have a kinna decent bi’ for the night kinna thing. An’ then tha’ll keep
them goin’ right through until the next diner time an’ then they go an’ get, start all over
again. An’ then the people who weren’t workin’ were the people tha’ were, I ‘ink, I ‘ink,
probably out of the two groups it’s the unemployed people tha’ became a lo’ more problematic. Just the problem, I ‘ink a lo’ o’ tha’ is to do with just boredom as well as, not just the
drug an’ the habit itself bu’ it’s nothin’ better to do. Go an’ ge’ a bag an’ if you don’t have
money you find a way to get money to ge’ a bag. [13, 18–35]

Corresponding to this model, a number of interviewed users give examples of the
way they are or were previously organising and exerting the interplay of working
and using heroin on an addictive basis. Amongst these are Joanna, (C), Angus (N),
Lilly (N), Patrick (C), Justin (C), Oscar (C), and Hannah (C) who give details of
managing both their jobs – ranging from technical and mechanical to office
positions of differing grades – and their opiate use.
In the citation below, Joanna (C) emphasises the severity of her heroin dependence. Without regular high doses of intravenous heroin, she affirms that she
would not have been able to get up in the mornings to go to work and master her
work day.
Joanna (C): […] I needed a hit to get me out o’ the bed an’ get meself to work an’ then
I was fine. An’ as long as I had another aen soon again, then tha’ would get me through the
day, an’ I would have more at nigh’. [6, 38–41]

Even though all of the seven employed, strongly dependent users stated to have
been able and willing to maintain this routine for a while, the majority of the group
affirm that after several months to years, respectively, they grew increasingly
exhausted by the efforts and strains they had to undertake to uphold their ‘double-life’.
Hence, when they felt that the overall costs of this way of life were outweighing the
benefits, they decided to change and consequently sought assistance and treatment
from the drugs project. Treatment forms in the first place involved methadone, subutex, or dihydrocodeine substitution programs combined with counselling. Patrick
(C), for example, whose job requires hours of long and hard physical work, asserts
that after several years of working and using a daily minimum of 50 GBP of
heroin ‘to feel normal’, he did not want to continue this ‘terrible’ lifestyle anymore
[3, 10–15]. Angus (N), on the contrary, describes how he manages to regularly
inject considerable amounts of heroin outside his working hours and to still fulfil his
work demands without great levels of stress. He explains how he carefully controls
the amounts and frequency of his use in order to avoid a physical habit, which
he believes would interfere with the work commitment he expects of himself
[15, 28–46].
Various interviewees mention a subgroup within the population of heavy using
employed Shetlanders consisting of young men in their mid- to late 20s, who engage
in a particularly extreme lifestyle, which has been referred to as ‘living life on the edge’

7.2

A Subculture of Diverse User Types and Groups

145

elsewhere1 [cf. Rick, C, 10, 5–14]. According to interview accounts, a decisive number
of these men are employed in extreme and risky work positions such as in deep-sea
fishery or on oil-platforms and engage in a similarly extreme and risky fashion of
drug use. Often their work patterns involve 10 or 14 successive days of difficult,
demanding and often dangerous work that are followed by an equally long stretch
of free time. In between working phases, these young men regularly spend much of
their large earnings on vast amounts of different drugs – often including heroin –
that are consumed excessively and preferably intravenously.
Rick, a Shetlander in his mid-30s, expresses his astonishment concerning this
group of extreme users, whose lives seem to centre on little else but hard work and
hard heroin use. He observes that these people often live with partners who are
either unaware or do not want to be aware of their boyfriends’ substance use.
Rick (C): […] An’ there is people, I find another strange thing, I ken a lo’ o’ guys tha’ are
younger than me, maybe 25, 28 year old, tha’ dunnae go tae work unless they’ve go’ gear
that day, or at least a tooter to smoke in the mornin’ fae the night before or things like tha’.
Ken, they’re at it A-L-L the time. They’re earnin’ 3,400 pound a week an’ livin’ wi’ girlfriends tha’ either totally dunnae know anythin’ aboot it or chose to ignore i’. An’ just
pretend tha’ they’re on the methadone an’ all their wages, ken, they spend all their wages
on heroin, if it’s around, an’ these guys work hard an’ all their money goes on smack.
R: What age are they?
Rick: Between 25 and 30 would be the age group. A lo’ o guys tha’ are workin’ all the time
an’ always worked an’, but, ken, they just seem to be hell-bent an’ non-stop they’re lookin’
for skag all the time. [9, 36–22]

Living life on the edge appears to bear the potential of experiencing extremely
intense emotional states. The desire for extreme experiences Shetlanders tend to
often associate with the ‘Viking’ mentality still manifest in many of the male
islanders.
With respect to predominant routes of administering drugs and foremost heroin
within the group of hard working and using Shetlanders, interview statements suggest a relatively wide occurrence of injecting. Nonetheless, a proportion of uncertain size is also described as either exclusively or additionally smoking and/or
snorting. Regarding the examples given by the employed and heavy users amongst
the interviewees, about half of them testify to smoking or, to a lesser degree, snorting,
whereas the other half reports injecting as the only or main way to consume the
drug. As has been mentioned, many interviewees’ statements indicate that intravenous heroin use has risen decisively in recent years, a development that would also
have affected this population.
By analysing interviewees’ statements and explanations, the impression emerges
that employment carries the potential to protect against excessively problematic
drug use and socio-economic marginalisation by providing a regular income and a
structured daily rhythm. Additionally, being embedded in a social circle also consisting of people not using heroin seems to support social stability by enforcing the
degree of social integration and identification with parts of the community not
1

Cf. Stallwitz (2007, p. 261).

146

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

defined by heroin consumption. On balance, it could be concluded that a stable
integration in Shetland’s society can function as a safeguard against social slipping.
Still, ‘living on the edge’ implies that slips can easily occur. However, knowledge of
this risk may actually increase the perceived buzz involved in this lifestyle. This
crowd seem to live a demanding and strenuous life that needs very careful and attentive balancing. With the occurrence of unplanned, unforeseeable events, the fragile
equilibrium can quickly be endangered.

Example of a Heavy Employed User
In order to provide a more concrete notion of an example of an employed heavy
user, a brief sketch of Oscar (C) will be presented in this section. The young client
in his early 20s outlines his using history and motivation. He reports having begun
to consume heroin on an occasional, casual basis encouraged by, on the one hand,
his peers and on the other hand, the desire for an enjoyable feeling. However, after
his last relationship broke up, his using motivation, severity and frequency have
changed considerably. Not only did he start to consume with the intention to suppress bad feelings rather than primarily for relaxation and pleasure as before, but he
also began a daily use of finally between 0.3 and 0.6 g a day [7, 34–8, 3].
He reports having smoked about the first half of his circa 20 months of regular use.
According to his account, the only reason he changed his route of administration to
intravenous use was because his daily doses became too large to still be covered by his
share of the drug within his user group. As a result, he decided to inject in order to
reduce the amount of heroin required to prevent feeling withdrawals [3, 2–3, 40].
While he states never having experienced serious difficulties regarding the funding
of both his general life and his use, he still stresses how much he dislikes and views
as problematic the physical and psychological habit that developed out of this daily
routine. Consequently, he feels restricted in his personal freedom by needing a
certain amount of heroin to feel ‘normal’. Hence, he maintains that he did not use
out of fun but rather necessity, which eventually caused him to decide to give up
using completely with the assistance of a methadone program. Apart from disliking
the feeling of dependence, he adds that the extreme risk of getting caught when
bringing up the heroin from the mainland was a further reason in rejecting the costs
of daily heroin use [5, 1–30]. (In the following section, he explains how someone of
his user group usually travels to the mainland by boat to purchase and bring back a
certain amount of heroin that is then equally divided amongst all group members.)
With regard to his general substance use, Oscar states that he also uses cannabis –
as many other interviewees – and has tried crack a few times [5, 31–32].

Example of a Heavy Employed User’s Personal User Group
In addition to the portrayal of Oscar as an individual user, his accounts with respect
to his personal user circle will be presented here as an example of an apparently
common social setting amongst working regular users in Shetland. The young man

7.2

A Subculture of Diverse User Types and Groups

147

tells that the group he has used heroin with on a regular basis for at least a year and
a half consists of six men, aged between their early 20s and mid-40s. The circle had
already existed as a group of friends for a relatively long time before the first person
started to use heroin and the rest gradually followed ‘snowball-like’ [1, 42–2, 12].
With regard to the circle’s heroin supply, Oscar states that one of the more courageous members, sometimes himself, would usually travel to the Scottish mainland
and purchase between half an ounce (14 g) and an ounce (28 g) to be shared equally
[1, 27–40]. Using restricted daily amounts of the, as a rule, good quality heroin
would by and large last the group for about 3 weeks. Typically, everyone would
contribute 100 GBP, which would, on average, result in circa 2 g per person. Oscar
states that the limitation to this amount was usually connected to what he and his
friends were able to obtain and could afford. A further constraint, according to
which patterns and extent of use were arranged, was maintaining the ability to carry
out work requirements. Generally, the group would get together when someone had
organised the heroin, which would then be apportioned and the friends would ‘have
an initial session together’ before going their own way – work and use. When stocks
come to an end, the friends would assemble again to work out a way to obtain the
next ration [3, 49–4, 8].
Apart from two people, the user circle would, according to Oscar, exclusively
smoke. The two, including himself, who prefer injecting as a route of administration, would not explicitly be sanctioned but were still made aware of their behaviour
being undesirable [2, 39–3, 1].
The interviewee explains that due to everyone earning money through employed
work, no one has hitherto encountered serious difficulties financing their use.
Consequently, he does not regard their use as a social problem that harms society or
anyone else [5, 1–30].
Concerning mentality and atmosphere, the young interviewee perceives his user
group as being ‘just like a big family’ supporting each other when in need. He
explains that some of these friends receive prescriptions of methadone and other
drugs, which can be shared if someone suffers from withdrawal symptoms.
[…] But then we all, like the five of us, we all, there’s like certain ones tha’ are on scripts
an’ tha’ an’ everybody would help each other out an’ that, you know, ken, wi’ different
things, stop them from feelin’ bad an’ stuff, ken. It’s jus’ like a big family. Ken? Like the
6,7 of us we’re all help each other oo’, ken? It’s jus’ like a family. An’ that’s jus’ the way it
stays, nobody else gets to come in an’ that’s i’. [7, 34–39]

A caring attitude of this kind has already been mentioned in the preceding chapter
when introducing the concept of community-mindedness in the more general context
of local conditions and levels of heroin-related problems. Oscar pronounces that with
regard to its members, his family-like user group intends to persist in its original form
without being open to anyone new. This kind of exclusiveness has also already been
referred to above in connection with community-mindedness and might even constitute an aspect of it. The social structure of Shetland, with all its different groupings
including the island heroin scene and its various sections, subsections, and groups, has
repeatedly been characterised as cliquey. The term as used in this book involves features such as exclusiveness of the in-group (referring to members of a certain reference
group) towards the out-group (concerning anyone not belonging to that group).

148

7.2.3.2

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

Full-Time Users

Various participants also give accounts of regularly and heavily using people, who
are predominantly unemployed and whose lives primarily revolve around heroin
purchase, use and partly supply. The occasional user and Shetlander, Oliver asserts
to know and have met numerous people, who are fully committed to heroin use and
either not able or not willing to take a genuine interest in caring for anything but
their drug use. He perceives persons in this state as ‘self-obsessed, selfish and cynical’.
Hence, he keeps a conscious distance as a form of ‘self-preservation’ in order to
protect himself from becoming more involved with the heroin scene than he feels
safe in terms of controlling his personal use.
Oliver (O): […] Oh ya ya, okay. Because, ah, I dunno… People who are really into heroin,
they don’t seem to have anythin’ else in their heads or on their mind at all. It’s just drugs
drugs drugs. And, ah, they don’t seem to have time or the interest or, I dunno, to look after
themselves or their house or It’s really the sor’ o’ people, some are nice of course… Aah,
sor’ o’ people that you really, or personally speakin’, I wouldn’t be doin’ too much,
I wouldn’ have too much to do wi’ them, if I didn’t want to buy some’in’ from them, you
know? And maybe, I don’ know, it’s a snobby thing. I don’t mean to sound like a snob. It’s
no snobby thing. It’s jus’ a sor’ o’, almost a, a self-respect or a self-preservation thing, you
know? Aaaah,… I wouldn’ want to end up like any o’ them, that’s for sure.
R: What are they like?
Oliver:… Jus’, I dunno. Seem to sor’ o’… become very, ah, self-obsessed and selfish an’,
ah, cynical as well. An’ ev- everythin’ revolves, the whole life revolves around the gear
[heroin], you know, the drug an’ I’m sure, there must be more to life than that. [9, 22–44]

Oliver continues his account of ‘full-time users’ at a later stage of the interview
by asserting that a relatively large number of people have been obsessed with heroin
for a long time. Meanwhile, many of them are in their 30s and 40s [12, 36–44].
While in the subsection above it was alleged that employment may protect against
social marginalisation, one could also argue the opposite: Those heroin consumers
are perhaps more likely to become full-time heroin users, who have already lived at
society’s margins before their lives started to become influenced by opiate use.
Several interviewees have also pointed out that the proportion of female heroin
users with rather ‘serious’ heroin habits, who are deeply involved in the heroin subculture, has noticeably increased in recent years. In the past, participant descriptions
convey the impression that heavily involved and intensively using people tended to
primarily be men. Many interviewees suggest this having begun to change.
In addition to outsider observations of people heavily engaged with heroin, a few
full-time users themselves provide insider perspectives. Gordon (C), for example, a
long-term injector deeply involved in the Shetland heroin scene for more than a decade,
categorises himself as a ‘junkie’ [9, 2–14]. He characterises himself as someone who
has always been addicted to something, including for many years heroin, which in his
opinion labels him a ‘junkie’. A further example is delivered by Rick (C), who equally
identifies with the designation junkie [4, 38]. Both men affirm their dedicated and
driven engagement not only in the use, but also the supply of heroin on the island
[Gordon, 2, 31–40; Rick, 10, 31–35]. Other interviewees, who are and have been
heavily and habitually using for long spans of their lives express similar standpoints.

7.2

A Subculture of Diverse User Types and Groups

149

In his above citation, Oliver mentions that the only reason he has contact to
heavily using and involved people is to buy heroin from them. ‘These people’, or
some of them, seem to be responsible for the supply of heroin to other users and
thus to play comparatively active roles in the general network of the heroin scene. It
appears plausible that many heavily using people will be profoundly concerned with
the overall subculture and that this engagement will be significantly greater and
deeper than of less frequent and intense users. One explanation could be that their
chief concern is to obtain enough heroin for their personal use. In a geographically
isolated location such as Shetland the probability of regular access to heroin might
be decisively increased when taking up some sort of active part in the supply network. Furthermore, someone unemployed, who uses frequently and intensively,
might also take the opportunity of dealing as a means to finance their consumption,
which at a general rate of 100 GBP/g is unlikely to be covered by unemployment or
incapacity benefits. It has already been pointed out by several participants that it is
primarily dealers and their immediate social circle, who have sufficient access to
heroin to develop serious habits.
The Shetland man Christian (O) asserts that circa 20 ‘hardcore’ users ‘prop the
whole thing [the heroin scene] up’ and without them, who ‘are generating the need,
there would be no economic point in taking smack up to Shetland’ [9, 32–38].
Regarding the way people in this group of users consume the drug, the majority
of interviewees assert that injecting constitutes the preferred and predominantly
applied method. Participants point out that on the one hand the effect is intensified,
which likely appeals to someone physically dependent on the opiate. On the other
hand, injecting might constitute a behavioural norm amongst many circles of heavy,
habitual users.

7.2.3.3

Users from the Severe End

A number of participants mention people, who have experience with intensive
injecting, sometimes for a long time. Their style of use seems to represent the
extreme end of the spectrum of different patterns of heroin use occurring in Shetland.
The long-term and herself at times heavily using client Hannah gives a detailed
description of her observations in this context. From her own experience, she knows
that a vein can only be utilised for frequent injection for a certain limited span of
time before it stops being usable. Then a new vein needs to be found. Whereas she
asserts to never have progressed to injecting into healthwise really risky parts of her
body, she knows a considerable number of people (about 10), who have at some
point started to apply the needle to their necks and groins. Three of them she declares
to have personally watched consuming this way. Injecting into such veins bears
substantial risks of serious infections and other dangers of fatality. Again, according
to her statements, people exhibiting such extreme behaviours tend to primarily be
dealers and their friends and acquaintances. The age of these extreme users she
knows ranges between somewhere in the 20s and at least mid-30s. She assumes that
the usual arm veins of the older ones have been destroyed by the length of time they

150

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

have been injected into and those of the younger ones will be before long, considering
the large amounts injected into them.
Hannah: Uumm, yeah, yeah, I’d say mainly, mainly dealers, people who are close or, yeah,
mainly that sor’ o’ idea. Uumm, bu’ I’ve certainly seen people, um, and people who’re
maybe jus’ dealin’ small amounts bu’ I know, I’ve seen one, two, three, I’ve seen three
people injectin’ in their neck. Um, an’ I know probably about five or seven other people
who inject in their neck and their groin. Uumm, some o’ that people are older people who
have, maybe don’t use an awful lo’ but they have no option now because they’ve abused
so much over the years. Some o’ the people I’m talkin’ about are more like 34, 35. And
two others of the people I’m talkin’ about are in their 20s and they’ve just used so much
in such a quick time that they’ve destroyed all their veins and had no option but to go into
their necks. I mean most o’ them get other people to inject into their necks because it’s
such a, I mean, it’s a really dangerous thing an’ it’s jus’ injectin’ right next to your brain.
[11, 42–12, 20]

Hannah is not the only person to report extreme injection behaviour, such as
inserting the needle into the groin. Quite the reverse, others report similar occurrences. One occasional user, for example, who had a phase of more regular use and
intensified contact to heavy users, asserts not only knowing of people injecting into
their groin but also to have personally witnessed intravenous use in the neck as well
as between the toes in a communal using setting [10, 36–38]. Injecting into such
life-endangering or painful sites in a social setting appears to indicate the existence
of very hefty using patterns and severe levels of addiction, combined with certain
standards possibly ‘normalising’ actions of this kind, which under different circumstances would probably be unacceptable. At a later stage, the conditions allowing
this type of extreme behaviour will be further scrutinised.
Appraisals concerning the extent of such extremes are not homogenous. Hannah
cites knowing about ten people, though how many more users act in this way remains
unclear. Some interviewees perceive the degree of such tendencies as decisive and
threatening and others, such as the occasional user Christian, asserts a restriction to
‘a bunch of fucking fuck-ups’, who had always been seriously addicted to some
substance, if not to heroin, then to alcohol, ecstasy or speed [18, 26–41]. Hence, he
does not regard destructive heroin consumption as a phenomenon genuinely threatening Shetland’s society [19, 8–13]. Still, to limit extreme heroin use merely to
people at the margins of society appears very unrealistic. One employed and, according to the before-named criteria, socially integrated woman from a widely respected
family, for example, also reports severe using patterns. Her statements do not refer
to highly risky injection sites, but to the severe amounts of up to 4 g of heroin a day
she maintains to have injected for considerable lengths of time. In order to protect
her anonymity, no further details will be revealed. Below she sketches the tremendous extent of his severely dependent heroin consumption some time prior to the
interview.
I (C): […] I don’t think, there’s many people in Shetland that’s probably had, uuummm, a,
an addiction that’s been as bad as three to four + grams a day. I mean I’ve seen meself injectin’
up to probably nearly a gram in one, one hit. An’ that jus’ bein’ enough to make me body
function, not gettin’ like a gouch on i’, jus’ beein’ enough, jus’ bein’ enough to make me
body function, that was it. [5, 29–35]

7.2

A Subculture of Diverse User Types and Groups

151

As the woman points out in her interview, with the extreme levels of intravenous
heroin use she used to engage in, she most likely constitutes an exception, as only a
few people are able to access such vast amounts of heroin in Shetland.

7.2.4

Soothmoothers

Corresponding with several interviewees’ accounts, a stereotype exists in Shetland
that commonly holds incomers from other parts of Britain responsible for social
evils und unwanted phenomena, including the consumption of illegal drugs, especially heroin. They are derogatively referred to as ‘Soothmoothers’2 by the Shetland
community in general, including heroin users.
According to the analysis of the conducted interviews, the belief is widespread
among the general public not involved in illicit drug use that Soothmoothers have
introduced drug, and specifically heroin use to the island community and represent
the bulk of people using illegal drugs in Shetland. Also within the heroin-using
population, the view seems to be defended that problematic tendencies within the
heroin subculture are typically introduced by Soothmoothers. In this context, the
incidents of intravenous heroin use, delinquency and in particular drug-related
delinquency, violence as well as hepatitis C infections are frequently reported to be
connected with incomers from urban Britain.
Claire (C), who comes from Shetland and states having much experience of
heroin use both in Shetland and on the urban mainland, affirms that people, who
have had heroin problems for a long time, tend to be people who have moved up to
Shetland from the British mainland [2, 4–7]. While to a certain degree the reservations held against especially urban immigrants transmit the idea of stereotypical
prejudices, the belief that incoming heroin users have exerted a fundamental
influence on the local heroin subculture seems to have some basis in fact. Hence, the
nature and effects of such influences will receive more thorough analysis in the
subsequent chapter when presenting a historical perspective of the Shetland heroin
scene’s development since its beginnings in the 1970s.
Six of the interviewed users confirm having moved to Shetland in order to regain
control over their excessively dependent and detrimental heroin use or to escape
from life-threatening gang conflicts and/or legal charges pending. These interviewees
embrace Gerry (C), Robin (C), Mark (C), Gordon (C), Lilly (C) and Duncan (C).

2

In his book ‘A Place in the Sun. Shetland and Oil’, about the impact the implementation of the
major oil terminal Sullom Voe in the mid- to late 1970s had on the island’s culture, the Shetland
writer Jonathan Wills depicts what he calls a ‘cultural panic’. He describes a commonly assumed
threat to the local way of life and speech, the ‘ethnic treasury’, going out from the large numbers
of strangers coming to the island as oil workers since the starting up of Sullom Voe. Since these
people have entered the island via its south mouth, they are called ‘soothmoothers’ (1991, p. 33).
The impression is conveyed that the anxiety for the ethnic treasury has been transferred from the
overall Shetland culture to the specific subculture of the island heroin scene.

152

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

Further details about this group and their relevance for the Shetland heroin scene
will be provided in later sections of this book.

7.2.5

Occasional or Recreational Users

While the actively involved, organising, fundamental players of the Shetland heroin
scene seem to be people who are frequently and heavily using and/or dealing, many
participants assert also knowing of a decisive number of recreational, occasional
consumers [Christian, 9, 32–38]. This user group is typically depicted as consisting
of people who would neither identify themselves as explicit heroin users, let alone
junkies, nor would other participants categorise them as such if coincidentally referring
to them in an interview. Amongst the interviewed users, four could be designated as
occasional users [Christian, Kay, Oliver, Isaac]. This designation, as generated on
the basis of participants’ accounts, implies principally moderate, non-addictive
using patterns across time, an overall high level of social integration and, as already
pointed out, an identity largely independent of heroin use. All interviewed occasional users state either being employed or in academic education, moreover, to possess a circle of friends mainly encompassing non-heroin users and a typical using
frequency ranging, inter- and intra-personally, from every few weeks over every few
months to a few times a year or as rarely as every few years.

7.2.5.1

Examples of Occasional Users and Their User Circles

In order to relay a more precise notion of the interviewed users, who have been
classified as occasional users, brief summaries of the four interviewees’ basic features
will be given in the following. While two men are aged around 30, the age of the
remaining woman and man is in the early 40s and late 40s, respectively.
One of the two younger men, Isaac, describes having used heroin for 3 or
4 exclusively when someone from a certain group of friends offered it to him. This
could be from – on rare occasions – two or three times a week to every few months.
He states having only ever having smoked or snorted and never injected within a
specific circle of friends. The frequency of his use he describes as erratic and consciously limited, so as not to develop a physical habit. He has never taken the initiative to ‘go out of his way to look for it [heroin]’, but rather seized the opportunity to
take part in a ritual organised by someone else [2, 2–3]. The appeal for him, aside
from the group ritual, comes from the ‘relaxed, nice sensation’ he experiences
[3, 39–42]. Throughout the interview, he recurrently and emphatically stresses the
importance of his using style always staying in the scope of social and responsible.
The former he defines as sharing a communal experience rather than consuming on
one’s own, while with the latter he refers to a style of use that neither puts himself
nor others physically, socially or psychologically at risk. With respect to his personal use, he explicitly includes the avoidance of developing a tolerance to the drug

7.2

A Subculture of Diverse User Types and Groups

153

as well as physical and psychological habituation. He wants to prevent his opiate
consumption interfering with any part of his life and, moreover, aims to maintain
the ability to consume out of enjoyment rather than dependency. However, since his
lifestyle changed, the opportunities to use at some point ceased to exist – his last
heroin use already dates back 20 months.
Specifics regarding personal using patterns, routes of administration, history,
motivation and setting given by the other young man, Christian, resemble those of
Isaac. Similarly, he has never gone looking for heroin and has exclusively used it
when it is offered to him [23, 36–40]. As another striking resemblance, both
interviewees see themselves not as heroin users but rather ‘dope smokers’, with
Isaac asserting, besides heroin, to have significantly reduced his overall substance
use, including cannabis. As Isaac Christian puts a strong emphasis on maintaining
a responsible style of use that does not interfere with any part of his life [24, 33],
little deviations seem to apply with respect to the setting of use. Isaac speaks about
a group of friends congregating at a dealer’s house and using together, whereas
Christian affirms that the approximately 15 times he has used heroin over a period
of around 4 years, he solely did it with another couple of very close, trusted, longstanding and older friends. He stresses needing and wanting ‘really trustable, comfortable surroundings’, in which he and his friends can carry out this form of social
experiment [19, 39–43].
The two older users, Oliver and Kay, also provide accounts similar to each other,
however, in several respects different from those of Isaac and Christian. Above all,
they are in their late/early 40s and their using histories are significantly longer.
Kay declares having first tried heroin in Shetland in her very young adult life
with older friends. Over the ensuing 20 years, she used between not at all and a few
times a year. She explains that her social use was constantly embedded in a highly
ritualised and secretive celebration within the scope of a consistent, exclusive group
of select, partly academic people, of whom she was the youngest. Typical occasions
of use were birthdays, Christmas or midsummer, when the heroin would sometimes
be parcelled up in gift wrapping paper. She refers to this ritual as ‘Santa Claus
project’ and ‘Christmas magic for adults’, which indicates the significance and local
value the drug and its communally celebrated use had for the group [6, 34–35].
According to her statements, her consumption had been restricted exclusively to the
just outlined social situations, until a few years prior to the interview she changed her
user circle. Her previous consumption seemed primarily to have been motivated by
the desire to participate in a social project together with people she greatly respected
and partly even admired. However, due to an array of burdening and traumatising life
experiences, her using motivation changed and she started to consume on her own,
more frequently, and with the intention of suppressing negative feelings instead of
taking part in a social happening. For the purpose of regular access to heroin, she
became involved with a completely different crowd of people, whose using patterns
seemed to have been determined primarily by habit rather than ideation. After a few
years of using in this way – still exclusively smoking – and certain aversive key experiences with people from the habitually using group, Kay decided to give up heroin
completely and consequently states not to have used for roughly 2 years.

154

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

Comparing Oliver’s account of his use, user group, and setting to Kay’s, an
array of similarities attract attention. While he was significantly older than Kay
when first trying heroin, the length of his use (more than 20 years), routes of administration (snorting and smoking), the frequency (ranging between every few months
and every few years) and the extremely ritualistic setting of an exclusive group of
select friends all chime with Kay’s descriptions. Corresponding to Kay’s Santa
Claus project or Christmas magic for adults, Oliver also creates an ideational dimension of his heroin use by referring to it as an ‘ontological experiment’ [2, 17–18].
Further specifying the aspects of the drug he perceives as appealing, he explains that
heroin use constitutes the ‘ultimate outsider’, ‘subversive activity’, which he likes
in a similar way to confrontational literature, art and music. Hence, in his eyes, the
opiate represents a ‘personality drug’, being the ‘ultimate confrontational drug’ [2,
29–40]. With respect to the course of use, certain aspects of the using style and the
method of purchase, the two participants seemingly diverge from each other to some
degree. Even though Oliver uses every few months, he affirms to sometimes use
more frequently, such as every few weeks or – on relatively rare occasions – for a
few successive nights. He also partly buys the drug himself, which Kay had deliberately avoided, apart from the last years before she stopped, when she had used
more frequently. Similar to Kay, Oliver also went through a phase of personal
problems around 4 years before the interview, which had caused the frequency of
his use to temporarily become higher than during the former circa 20 years. However,
while Kay decided to stop her use completely, he gives details of how he took a
using break until his emotional life had regained its prior stability and afterwards
resumed the same patterns of occasional, casual heroin use that he had maintained
over two decades.

7.2.5.2

Control Rules and Mechanisms of Occasional Users

Most occasional users appear to apply certain rules and mechanisms to regulate the
frequency and extent of their heroin intake. Amongst the personal examples provided by Isaac, Christian, Kay and Oliver are, ‘not to go out of one’s way to look
for heroin but to restrict one’s use to the occasions when it is offered’, ‘not to use
frequently enough to develop a physical habituation, that is, not more than 2 or
3 days/nights in a row’, ‘to use in a social rather than in a solitary setting’, ‘to use
responsibly and with respect towards the drug’, ‘to use with the intention of obtaining relaxation and enjoyment rather than to alleviate negative feelings’, ‘not to
inject’ and ‘to keep a distance from the scene of heavy, habitual users and dealers.

7.2.5.3

Conclusions About Occasional Users

Briefly summarised case presentations of the four interviewed occasional heroin
users have just been provided in order to exemplify the similarities and differences

7.2

A Subculture of Diverse User Types and Groups

155

within this very diverse population. Although many further types of users and
variations in using style not presented in this study are likely to exist in Shetland,
through the analysis of these four, as well as of the other 20 interviews, it becomes
evident that certain features are more likely to occur in this heterogeneous group
than amongst heavy, habitual users. Such features include high levels of socioeconomic integration according to the definition given above. While this does not
automatically imply the reverse, heavy, habitual users nonetheless exhibit a higher
probability of being marginalised. Furthermore, this group is depicted as being
surrounded by a social circle that, to a considerable degree, is not involved in heroin
use and shows a propensity not to identify or define themselves as heroin users or
even junkies, but dope smokers, boozers or simply people who on certain occasions
use different psychoactive substances. The impression conveyed is that this user
group identifies with mainstream culture or with reference groups accepted by
mainstream culture rather than with the heroin using subculture.

7.2.6

Female Users

As mentioned above, interviewees take different views regarding the proportion of
male and female heroin users in Shetland. While most assume the Shetland heroin
scene to be characterised by an overbalance of men, a considerable number of participants hold different views. The young, employed Shetlander Oscar (C), for
example, perceives the overall scene to be more heavily populated by men than by
women. However, Oscar explains that heroin users in Shetland generally ‘keep
their use very quiet’ and that women tend to be particularly secretive and careful
about engaging in this highly stigmatised and criminalised behaviour [6, 23–26].
Thus, the manifest male domination may to a certain extent be an artefact.
Besides, many participants perceive the female presence in the heroin subculture
to have increased noticeably in recent years, alongside a general increase in use and
users. It appears plausible that both the prominence and proportion of women using
heroin have risen with the general growth and spread of the scene. Hence, they may
have somewhat reduced their extreme level of secrecy while simultaneously increasing
their overall numbers. Patterns of use might also have undergone changes, as some
interviewees report more women with serious habits than beforehand. Oliver (O)
suggests that due to 90% or even 99% of all heroin dealers being male, far more
men used to consume heroin. He assumes that the dealers initially ‘kept the heroin
to themselves’ and only recently started to supply to people originally at the margins
of the scene, such as women and younger people [21, 23–28].
The long-term using client Gerry, who claims to have been intensively involved
in the Shetland heroin scene for more than a decade, explains that many female
heroin users have ‘at one time been a partner of a male user’ [15, 27–28]. Through
their partners, they originally accessed the drug and this way started to participate
in the subculture.

156

7.2.6.1

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

Personal Examples of Interviewed Female Users

Of the eight women interviewed, the majority declare to buy their own heroin. One
female interviewee appears to deal heroin to some degree while another claims to
rely primarily on her boyfriend to provide her with her daily dose. The proportion
of women arranging their personal supply independently of men might be overrepresented in the interview group, as all but two are clients of the drugs project, which
implies a greater degree of scene involvement than one would find in the total
population of female heroin users. The social settings of heroin use described by the
interviewed women include groups of other women, one or two close friends, primarily
with men, and with whoever happens to be around on a using occasion, often a
dealer’s house. The majority of female participants confirm Gerry’s assertion that
most female users have at one point been a partner of a male user and started using
through him [Mona, C, 2, 8–10; Claire, C, 1, 40–42; Hannah, 4, 13–19; Lilly, N,
1, 7–23; Joanna, 18, 18–19].

7.2.6.2

Conclusions About Female Users

Based on the variety of interview statements – both by men about female users and
by female users themselves – one can assume that on the whole, women play a more
passive role than men in the heroin subculture, as the vast majority of dealers are
male. Female heroin users are often portrayed as having followed their male partners
into use, and to depend on boyfriends or male friends for access to the drug. Their
patterns of use are recurrently depicted as less severe in frequency of use, rate of
injection and in level of physical dependence than amongst men. However, with the
general spread of heroin use in the relatively recent past, a shift towards a more
active involvement in the scene may be on its way.

7.2.7

Users in the Countryside

The interview statements about heroin users and user groups in the countryside and
places outside Lerwick somewhat resemble those concerning female users. Virtually
all participants describe the centre of the Shetland heroin scene to be located in the
capital Lerwick. Nonetheless, most participants state that since the beginnings of
the island heroin scene between the mid- and late-1970s, there have been people
living in rural and even very remote parts of Shetland who consumed heroin [e.g.
Duncan, 1, 13–14]. However, due to the greater prevalence of the opiate’s stigma in
small country communities, behaviours related to the use of heroin are described by
various interviewees as being accompanied by greater concealment and secrecy
[e.g. Mona, C, 7, 49–50]. It appears that heroin supply and distribution was for a
long time virtually restricted to Lerwick, but that, meanwhile, the general
expansion and growth of the heroin scene over recent years has reached rural areas

7.2

A Subculture of Diverse User Types and Groups

157

[Rick, C, 13, 21–28; Oliver, O, 5, 10–18; Oscar, C, 6, 30–37]. Although heroin use
might have increased considerably in remote, rural areas, the supply still seems to
have its centre in the capital. Nevertheless, the analysis of the interviews suggests
that smaller ‘sub-markets’ have developed, where specific people supply their
immediate social circle and possibly certain others as well. These developments
have already been alluded to in the previous chapter when outlining the location and
spread of the island heroin scene.
The majority of the interviewed users state to live in Lerwick and four in different rural locations. While some of the ‘toonies’ [Rick, C, 13, 25] purport
always to have lived in the capital, others claim to have lived in remote places at
some point in their lives. The four ‘country users’ maintain that they buy heroin
predominantly in Lerwick and take it to their respective towns or villages.
Alternatively, they purchase and use in Lerwick with other local users or travel to
mainland Scotland to obtain the drug, which they then bring back to Shetland in
order to share with their respective user groups. To a limited extent, heroin users
seem to be able to access the drug in their respective residential areas [Oscar, C,
6, 35–37; Cathy, 2, 37–40].

7.2.8

Influential User Groups

The diversity of sub-scenes, user groups and types – including aspects such as
particular characteristics, the respective roles within the overall subculture and consumption patterns – has just been demonstrated. Depending on the details provided
by interviewees, some personal user groups and their respective features, such as
age range, gender distribution, social backgrounds and patterns of use, could be
presented with greater and some with lesser clarity. Additionally, specific examples
of interviewees belonging to the introduced divisions or groups of the heroin scene
have been introduced in order to substantiate the preceding descriptions. This
section will now identify and portray two specific user groups. These two groups are
referred to often and as specifically influential and are here denoted as the original
crew and the old school users. To the latter, some participants personally belong to,
whereas the former is represented from an observer’s angle only.

7.2.8.1

The Original Crew

At the beginning of Part II, it was indicated that according to participant descriptions
the beginnings of the Shetland heroin scene are located between the mid- and the late1970s and associated with the implementation of Sullom Voe, which became the
biggest and most significant oil terminal in Europe. Primarily, older users, who have
been involved in the island heroin subculture for a long time, outline their knowledge
of the original Shetland heroin users. According to the given descriptions, three types
of British – especially urban – incomers arrived in Shetland: hippie dropouts, people

158

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

with heroin habits, who intended to avoid urban drug scenes with their own supply, and
a great influx of qualified skilled workers, who became oil workers at the terminal.
Duncan (C), himself an urban incomer in his mid-30s and involved in the local
heroin scene for a long time, refers to these original users as hippies and oil workers
who are considerably older than himself and used to and still live the free spirit of
the 1960s and 1970s. Those employed at Sullom Voe earned around 10 times more
than they had before in their home cities. Temporarily resident in a place with very
restricted possibilities to spend money and leisure time, Duncan explains that these
people consequently invested much of their inflated incomes on drug use. He
characterises these users as mature people who used and use drugs such as heroin
responsibly and cautiously. Illicit drugs were probably purchased on their regular
returns to their home cities and subsequently brought up to the island. How many of
the original urban incomers remain in Shetland cannot be estimated reliably.
Concluding from the interview analysis, the remainder of the original crew might
still comprise at least 15 people.
Typically, heroin was and is used in consciously restricted doses and consumed
in small groups of carefully selected ‘sensible’ people. If users developed patterns
of uncontrolled or otherwise problematic heroin use, they apparently were reprimanded and instructed to restrain their using behaviours. The interviewee considers
such admonitions to be, to some extent, specific to the small island community of
Shetland rather than common to all heroin scenes. He emphasises that in big cities,
such as Glasgow, far greater quantities of the drug are available as well as possibilities
to learn about use and patterns of use. Accordingly, varying systems of norms and
rules to regulate use and distinct modes of informal knowledge transfer are developed
and established.
Duncan (C): Oh yeah, people, there’s people up here tha’ always kept tha’ way. There was
like a, I remember a long time ago the only heroin scene, if you could possibly call i’ tha’,
was people tha’ were older than me, much older than you an’, aaaah, all the rest of i’, kinna
came ou’ the 60s an’ 70s. They all came up here when there was an awful lo’ o’ money for
the oil an’ all tha’. And because o’ all tha’ money an’ all tha’ there’s all sor’ a’ wild stories
you must have heard abou’ wha’ the site was like an’ everythin’. Now, people, firemen an’
stuff like tha’ were ge”in’ 40 to 50 pounds a week wages. Whereas up here people tha’ just,
tha’ […] were joiners or they were wha’ever, welders an’ stuff like tha’, were earnin’ like
five-hundred a week. So tha’ was like crazy money for people then, i’ really, I remember,
there was maybe one in three families or one in two dads in the schemes in [British city] in
all tha’, they all go’ jobs in the rigs, because they all go’ unemployed in the shipyards. They
were all welders, they were pipe fitters an’ all the rest of i’. So they all came here. An’ then
they all used to come back every two weeks. two weeks on an’ two weeks off, you know
wha’ I mean? […] Basically i’ was people tha’ had all come ou’ of tha’ scene in the 60s,
righ’? An’ they were older than us, an’ if anyone was ever usin’ anythin’ like that [heroin]
it was never abou’, i’ was always in a very very small amount. I’ was always in a very very
small group o’ very very wealthy people. An’ sensible people, an’ older people an’ blablabla,
righ’? I’ wasn’ like young metal guys tha’ are runnin’ aroun’, you know, ge’ wha’ever they
can lay their hands on. You know? People weren’t like tha’. If things ge’ ou’ of hand, i’ was
really talked to them an’ an’ i’ was ’That’s wha’ i’ should be like’, you know, not because
tha’ happens everywhere, righ’? In [British city] there’s an awful, usually there’s an awful
lo’ o’ more knowledge, even among the guys tha’ are a bi’ younger. You know I mean?
There’s just so much o’ i’ an’ they’ve go’ big brothers, you know wha’ I mean? There’s
avenues for them to learn. […] [4, 31–5, 7]

7.2

A Subculture of Diverse User Types and Groups

159

Corresponding with the account of several interviewees, these original users
Duncan introduces and describes, still exist and seemingly continue their controlled
and watchful approach to heroin use. They continue to purchase the drug exclusively and non-profitably for their own consumption within their respective select
groups. Participants illustrate smoking or snorting as the predominant or even the
only route of administration. Injecting does not appear to conform to the using
norms and prescriptions common in this sub-scene.
7.2.8.2

The Old School Users: The Privileged Core Network

While the original crew are believed to constitute the island heroin scene’s initial
founding group and thus play an essential role within the network of the overall
subculture, another crowd is also accorded substantial significance by numerous
participants. This group, named the old school users by Gerry (C) [9, 35; 11, 41],
seem to represent the sub-scene that subsequently assumed the central position
within the subculture. They are described as having formed the scene’s centre with
regard to organisation and supply for a period of at least one decade, and to still hold
a significant position, albeit these days rather equitably as other groups of users.
The old school users are referred to by about a third or a quarter of the participants.
However, since often no names are given by the interviewed users, the depiction of
this group cannot be fully precise. Nevertheless, at least four men, of whom two
originate from Shetland, Gordon (C) and Rick (C), and two from the British mainland, Gerry (C) and Duncan (C), appear relatively unambiguously to be or to have
been part of this crowd. One mainlander in particular regards himself as, and is
regarded by others to be, a central player and at certain times the central player in
the organisation of the island’s heroin supply network.
The long-term user Gerry provides a detailed account of his perception of the
group, which he estimates to consist of around a dozen male and half a dozen female
heroin users. The women, he argues, have primarily joined the crowd through relationships with the male members. This apparently passive and conservative female
user role has already been explored above. Concerning the age of the old school
users, Gerry guesses a range between 30 and 50, with the greater part in the late
30s. With regard to their employment status, he explains that the group has always
comprised working as well as unemployed people, with the former predominantly
financing their use through their wages and the latter through benefits and drug dealing. With respect to using patterns, Gerry explains that the majority would in the
first instance smoke, especially if the drug quality was relatively pure, and only a
subgroup of heavier users within the overall old school user group would regard
smoking as a ‘waste’ of the precious goods and exclusively inject. These users have
been described as privileged concerning their access to comparatively pure heroin,
which they very secretively and unobtrusively supply well-nigh solely amongst
themselves [e.g. Gordon, C, 4, 12–14; Gerry, C, 11, 40–43].
R: And, um, what happened to old, this old kinna core group, you were talking about?
Gerry (C):… Still goin’ strong. Still goin’ strong, bu’ no’ as, I don’ know, it’s still goin’
strong as it ever was, I suppose. They’re still keepin’ the best, the best heroin that comes

160

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

onto the island, just about a dozen people know abou’ i’, kinna thing. […] So now, when a
good bi’ does come onto the island then i’ is some o’ the old school tha’ will take it on, to
the island. An’ i’ is kept very very quiet. Very very low key. Kept to kinna minimum group.
[…] It’s it’s kinda, it’s kinda strange, it’s kinda strange because there is still tha’, the original
kinna core network is still kinna goin’ strong kinna thing. An’ they manage to kinna keep it
safe an’ kinna sorted all the way through. [11, 28–12, 4]

Taking a historical perspective, Gerry emphasises the durability and stability of
the ‘original core network’ or ‘core group’ over the past 10 or more years. This user
group apparently held its prime position for a long time. In the following, with the
designation ‘old school users’, this influential core network of originally urban,
intravenous users is referred to. Recently, the subculture seems to have undergone
considerable changes, which have relativised the old school users’ previous superiority.
These as well as the meanings associated with the denotation old school users will
be looked at in the subsequent chapter.

7.2.9

Young Users

In the course of scene alterations, young people in their early- and mid-20s are
reported to have gained a decisive impact on the subculture, both as users and dealers.
According to the accounts of the young users interviewed, their profiles are not
characteristically different from other users. However, their roles and the meaning
of their respective advents are of decisive importance in the context of the overall
developments and changes of the subculture. Again, these issues will be illuminated
in detail in the succeeding chapter and will, therefore, here only be indicated.

7.3

7.3.1

The Heroin Scene’s Social Network and Mentality:
Subject to an Underlying Spirit
of Community-Mindedness?
Contact Between the Groups and Circles

As has been demonstrated, according to the accounts of participants, the social
network of the Shetland heroin scene comprises a wide array of diverse user groups
differing from each other by frequency and style of and motivation for use, individual characteristics such as age and gender, and socio-economic factors including
employment status, living conditions and also residential status – for example, urban
or rural. Oscar (C) points to ‘being from Lerwick’ and ‘not being from Lerwick’ as
decisive criteria differentiating crowds. He explains that ‘the Lerwick crew sticks to
themselves and people from the countryside stick to themselves’, with himself
belonging to the latter group [6, 26–29].

7.3 The Heroin Scene’s Social Network and Mentality: Subject to an Underlying…

161

A number of interviewees speak about the diversity of heroin using groups and
cliques all over Shetland. Even though it has repeatedly been stated that user groups
exist in areas in the north, west, east and south, the definite extent of the spread
obviously can only be estimated.
The individual groups are recurrently described as enforcing some exclusivity
with regard to heroin supply and use. Whether someone belongs to a group or not
seems to depend fundamentally on social relations. Often interviewees describe
groups as being bonded by relationships ranging from acquaintance to close friendship. Trust seems to play an essential role with respect to whether someone is in a
specific clique or out. Interviewees imply that such cliques are particularly exclusive
and closed to outsiders where the members tend to be attached by long-standing,
trusting friendships. Occasional and heavy users in employment in particular appear
to prefer, or even need, a setting characterised by trust and reliability in order to feel
sufficiently comfortable to use such a highly stigmatised and criminalised substance. While many report consuming typically within their user cliques, some also
emphasise that they would feel uncomfortable even with groups of reliable friends
and would solely use with one, two, or three very close friends (e.g. Christian (O)
and Joanna (C)). In contrast, others are portrayed as less private and clandestine.
It appears that the more extreme, heavy and habitual users tend to consume in comparatively open contexts. Angus (N) gives details of his personal consumer circle of
10–20 fairly good friends and predominantly habitual users, practically all of whom
earn their living through paid work while carefully concealing their behaviour from
their respective bosses [11, 48–12, 9]. The information he provides with regard to
the size of his circle suggests a less strictly and exclusively defined context than the
respective social settings described by Christian (O), Joanna (N) or Oscar (C).
Lily (N) appears to need even less secrecy. She claims to know virtually every client
attending the drugs project, and while she was consuming regularly and habitually,
she would have used with ‘anybody and everybody at the drugs project’. However,
since she has significantly reduced the severity and frequency of her use, she purports
now only to associate with two or three of the ‘drugs project crowd’ that she would
be friendly with [10, 38–50].
The interview analysis suggests that features such as employment status and
style of use could be associated with the degree of confidentiality, privacy, and control user wants, needs, and arrange for his social heroin use. Hence, the size of
groups of unemployed, chaotic consumers might potentially be larger and more
variable than of employed ones, possibly to an even greater degree for those using
only casually and occasionally. A plausible explanation might be that more is at
stake for employees than for people who are out of work. Moreover, the level of
control in the social use setting might be reduced in connection with an increased
degree of habituation to or even dependence on the drug. However, for different
people, the two variables might vary in weight and meaning. Moreover, they might
even deviate for the same person at different points in time, as exemplified by Lilly
above. Additionally, a number of other factors not clearly discernable will probably
also play a role in the formation of heroin using groups of strongly diverging sizes
and characters.

162

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

Shetland’s general social network has often been characterised by statements
like ‘everyone knows each other’ and ‘everyone knows each other’s businesses’. In
contradistinction to the tight social structure resulting from the island’s small and
close-knit nature seems to stand the carefully protected arrangement of apparently
cliquey exclusive individual user groups of varying sizes. Interview extracts in this
regard suggest that particular groupings know of each other and possibly maintain
contact to various extents, while others seem to be ignorant of each other or, again,
of certain others. Amongst other things, this is probably related to the secretiveness
the respective circles apply to their heroin use and purchasing behaviours. It has
also repeatedly been emphasised that some crowds intentionally avoid contact with
others, such as occasional users with people using heavily.
Still, due to the island’s narrow social structure and ‘everyone knowing each
other’, people also report associating with each other across group borders. Christian
(O), for example, confirms that even though he uses very infrequently, he maintains
friendly relations with a few habitual users, with whom he has been close friends
since childhood. In an anonymous urban environment, these relations might not
have been sustained [8, 41–43].
Nonetheless, for the greater part, the interviewed casual users apparently tend to
shun heavier users, injectors and/or dealers. The motivation underlying this avoidance behaviour appears to be the desire not to put their carefully monitored patterns
of occasional use at risk. Control regulations in this connection will be attended to
in greater depth and detail later on in this section in the context of norms and rules
with respect to behaviours associated with heroin.

7.3.2

Level of Scene Involvement and Position

7.3.2.1

Hard Core, Peripheral Edge and in Between

The varying degrees of involvement in the overall heroin subculture have recurrently been touched upon throughout this book and have been referred to also in
connection with the just presented different heroin using factions and groupings.
The intensity with which users participate in the general scene seems to range
from passively and peripherally to actively and centrally. The extreme passive,
peripheral end of the spectrum could be imagined as someone who merely uses
heroin on rare occasions when offered. The opposite end might be exemplified by
a dealer who uses heavily and who supplies a great proportion of the heroin using
population in Shetland as opposed to exclusively their private user circle. The
occasional consumer Christian, who appears to be relatively well informed about
the extents as well as the internals of the Shetland heroin subculture, describes its
hard core as comprising roughly 20 people. He argues that this faction creates the
economic demand, without which presumably no heroin scene as such would
exist. Contrary to this fairly small hard core, Christian describes the scene’s

7.3 The Heroin Scene’s Social Network and Mentality: Subject to an Underlying…

163

‘outskirts’, the ‘peripheral edge’ of occasional ‘dabblers’ as comprising comparatively
many people.
Christian (O): […] It’s only really the hardcore ones that I’m aware of, maybe 20 people, ken?
They kinna prop the whole thing up. If it wasn’t for them it be, there’d be no economic point
takin’ smack up tae Shetland, ken? So it’s them sorta generatin’ the need. An’ then there’s a lo’
of people, ken, on the peripheral edge of it - dabblin’ every now and again. [9, 32–38]

It may be that members of the hard core of the heroin scene Christian briefly
sketches in his quotation, accord with the notion of old school users outlined above,
who, consistent with interview accounts, used to constitute the subculture’s centre
and still hold a central role.
Apart from the hard core and the peripheral edge, the subculture is shown to
embrace an array of diverse user groups with varying degrees of ‘active scene
involvement’. The concept of active scene involvement, inferred from the interview
analysis and theoretically abstracted, entails an assortment of defining features. The
prerequisite for active scene involvement appears to be identifying oneself as a heroin user or a junkie and tending to concentrate one’s social contacts predominantly
on the subculture and only subordinately on the non-using mainstream culture.
Associated behaviours include first of all dealing followed by initiative regarding
the purchase of the opiate. Different possibilities outlined by participants encompass travelling to mainland Britain and personally buying from an urban dealer,
alternatively frequenting a Shetland dealer, or arranging to obtain the drug through
friends or acquaintances. With respect to patterns of use in many cases, the rule
seems to apply that the more frequently and heavily someone is using, the more
intensively will their lives be interweaved with the opiate scene. A similar formulation may apply to injecting and especially frequent injecting. Moreover, to have
other people regularly using at one’s own home also seems to indicate an advanced
level of involvement. On balance, it could be concluded that the more one’s personal
and private life is determined by the drug, the stronger will be their association with
the subculture.
On the basis of the interview analysis, seven participants appear to be attributable
to the scene’s periphery [Oliver, Isaac, Christian, Kay, Joanna, Duncan,
Hannah], seven to middle positions [Ben, Rick, James, Patrick, Justin, Oscar,
Mark] and the remaining ten to the centre area of the subculture [Gerry, Angus,
Philip, Lilly, Gordon, Mona, Cathy, Claire, Helen, Robin].

7.3.2.2

Scene Position

The degree of scene involvement appears to be closely interlinked with another
concept: the scene position. Scene position includes features such as personal accessibility of heroin and knowledge of topical news – for example, whether heroin is
currently obtainable in Shetland, who is dealing and who has been caught by the
police. Accessibility of heroin, in turn, can be understood to depend on the quality
of one’s personal, social contacts within the scene.

164

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

Angus (N), who always lived in Lerwick, where his user circle is located,
portrays himself as having been involved in the island heroin scene for a long time.
Consequently, he knows many of the central people and therefore often receives
information about other heroin using circles in and outside the town [18, 41–50]. An
even more central and privileged role seems to be held by Gordon (C), originating
from the urban mainland and purporting to belong to the group of old school users
introduced above. He asserts that he knows ‘everything [drug related] that happens
on this island’ and claims always to be informed about which drugs will arrive when
in Shetland [14, 44–50].

7.3.2.3

Access to Heroin

Angus explains that as a further consequence of his long-standing participation and
numerous contacts in the subculture, he is typically informed as soon as good-quality heroin arrives in Shetland. He outlines his privileged position of being offered
heroin even in times of scarcity, when dealers tend to retain the small amounts of
remaining heroin to themselves and their immediate social peers. Hence, he holds a
type of ‘senior right to heroin’ [5, 17–33]. His advanced possibilities are likely also
to be associated with his previous personal activities as a small-scale heroin dealer.
The client and old school user Gordon, already cited in the preceding paragraph,
seems to possess an even more privileged position within the scene network. Being
a mainlander himself, he claims always to be able to obtain very pure heroin through
his contacts with urban dealers, and besides purports to ‘know almost every supplier
in Shetland’. As a result, he claims always to have the opportunity to purchase heroin
of far better quality than the average standard on the island [2, 45–3, 14]. As with
Angus, Gordon’s efficient contacts are obviously connected to a personal history of
dealing that also plays a fundamental role in his current status.
The long-term using mainlander Lilly (N), who has been described by other interviewees as dealing or distributing, respectively, heroin in comparatively small amounts,
offers an expressive account of conditions one must meet in order to get access to the
opiate. In periods of extreme heroin scarcity – as apparently was the case at the time of
the interview – ‘being made out of gold’ was almost a prerequisite for access to the opiate in her opinion. ‘Being made of gold’, Lilly explains, stands for ‘being special’, and
belonging to the in-groups of heroin dealers. She argues that, due to the strongly stigmatised and illegal status of heroin, people who deal always conceal their heroin reserves.
At times of severely restricted heroin availability, only people within their immediate
social proximity – such as sexual partners, relatives and close friends – enjoy the opportunity of access. The interviewee expresses a certain gratitude towards the current heroin
drought since it enables her to temporarily reduce her heroin intake without the temptation of widespread availability. She claims to feel partially ambivalent: on the one hand
she hates to have even her cannabis consumption limited, but on the other she’s glad to
be able to maintain better health thanks to restrictions beyond her control.
Lilly (N): Uum,… well, it’s pretty hard to ge’ anythin’ just now like. Like you go”a be, um,
not gold-plated bu’ made ou’ of gold, do you know wha’ I mean, before you can ge’ anythin’
now. You’ve go’ to be special, ken? You know wha’ I mean.

7.3 The Heroin Scene’s Social Network and Mentality: Subject to an Underlying…

165

R: You’ve got to be special?
Lilly: Yeah. Ah, you’ve go’ to be in with the either whoever i’ is who’s go’ the kit, ken, ‘cos,
it’s obviously disguised, you know, they’re no’ gonna, [burps] pardon me, they’re no’ gonna
broadcast i’, ken, no’ gonna pu’ i’ open on the street. With with all these busts comin’ on, so.
You know, you’ve go’ to be like the brother or the sister or in bed with them most o’ the time
before you find out that they’ve go’. You know, I mean? So, yeah, you find at the minute it’s
pretty hard, which… is a good thing, really. You know, I mean, I don’t think, tha’ I’ve been
feelin’ as good [xxx] Or if i’ was, you know, readily available, ken, if I have to fuckin’ go
through 10 people to ge’ i’, you know I mean? So, for me personally I think it’s a good thing
tha’ we don’t have. I mean, don’ ge’ me wrong, I have days when I’m “Fuck this island! I can’t
even ge’ a bi’ a hash together!” You know? Bu’, it’s a good thing really. I think. [12, 20–42]

Lilly doesn’t appear to be one of the ‘golden people’, since she claims to have ‘to go
through ten people to get it’. However, she still appears to be able to eventually obtain it.
In concordance with Lilly, Shetlander Cathy (C), who injects heavily in spells, agrees
that heroin dealers in Shetland keep their business very secretive and hidden, largely to
avoid police attention. At times, this results in the ‘mainstream heroin user’ being barely
able to purchase the drug. In contrast with Lilly, though, she portrays herself as belonging to the ‘golden people’. She claims to possess the right ‘phone numbers’, as if these
constitute a key to an exclusive kind of underground club. Rather than maintaining
familiar or intimate relationships with dealers, she alludes to a specific friendship bonding her and someone who used to supply a fairly large group with heroin. Through
persistence, she explains, she has managed to finally establish contact with a great proportion of the in-group of the island heroin scene – the section receiving heroin for sale
and distributing it beyond their private user circle. With respect to offering fair deals,
Cathy deems most of the dealers she knows not to be trustworthy [1, 44–2, 2].
The Shetland man, who had already been referred to above in the section concerned with the severe end of heavy users, claims to have been very close friends
with one of the bigger Shetland dealers since school days. Because of this strong
and longstanding friendship, he claims always to have had access to as much heroin
as he wants, which temporarily rose to a daily dose of 4 g. He exhibits an awareness
of his exceptional status, which allows him virtually unlimited access, even during
periods of drought. Like other interviewees, he repeatedly emphasises that this level
of access is normally only available to dealers and their girlfriends.
I: […] Uumm, bu’ I mean, I know wha’ you’re sayin’ about people it’s no’ possible, because
for certain people i’ wasn’, but because like [name of befriended dealer], well, basically had
the supply aaan’ tha’ was tha’ for us. We never went days without. There was other people
tha’ went days or, wha’, weeks or wha’ver, bu’ we never ran ou’ sort of thing. No’ in tha’
whole five months tha’ I remember havin’ to go without at all. […] I’ was very easy accessible.
Uuumm, there was jus’ no problems an’ i’ was an endless supply.
R: Because he was dealing as well?
I: Yeah. Aaand I got to the stage where, I mean, I’m not jokin’, I was probably, uumm,
injectin’ four grams a’ heroin, a day. [4, 36–45]

Like Lilly, this participant reasons that his ‘problem’ was that heroin was always
too available for him. Since he was not as externally restricted as most ‘ordinary’
users, he claims his habit was able to ‘escalate as much as it could’.
I: But being so close to dealers an’ everythin’ you never really went, went without. You
knew things were comin’ to an end, so things had to be cut back, but by the time you had

166

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

cut back it was back on the island again, there was more here. An’ of course bein’ so close
to dealers you were the last to get, so you always had at the first to get once i’ got here again,
you know wha’ I mean? So the problem, i’ was always too easily available for me. An’
because o’ my situation I didnae jus’ have a habi’ of half a gram a day, a 20 pound bag or a
10 pound bag or a five pound bag a day. My habi’ was able to escalate as far as I want, as
far as it could escalate, because there was jus’ so much there an’ it was always there an’ i’
was available, because I was such close friends with [name of dealer] for so long.[…] So
my problem, like i’ was easy for me, I mean, I jus’ never had to worry about it, never had
to think about it, never had to think about money, that sort of thing, an’ i’ was there and that
was it. And that’s why, I mean, I don’t think, there’s many people in Shetland that’s probably had, uuummm, a, an addiction that’s been as bad as three to four + grams a day. I mean
I’ve seen meself injectin’ up to probably nearly a gram in one, one hit. An’ that jus’ bein’
enough to make me body function, not gettin’ like a gouch on i’, jus’ beein’ enough, jus’
bein’ enough to make me body function, that was it. [5, 11–35]

He explains that in spite of several periods of unemployment, he always managed
to hold onto his well-paid position in a nameable Shetland company. He purports to
have spent most of his wages on heroin, and since he got the opiate for a very cheap
price due to his private relationship with his dealer, he never had to worry about
finances [12, 1–5]. He claims that before and during phases of limited heroin availability, he sometimes reduced his daily dose but never felt serious anxiety about
withdrawal. Like Lilly, he seems grateful that this all too easy access stopped after
his friend was caught by the police and incarcerated. After his privileged circumstances had ceased, he states that he found the courage to consider completely giving
up heroin [1, 35–2, 16].
This Shetland man and Lilly are only two of eight interviewees who state that
easier access to heroin would make it decisively more difficult to regulate their
use in terms of frequency and quantity. This apparently shared perspective will be
further explored in Chap. 8 about the heroin scene’s historical development and
the various eras identified on the basis of the interview analysis. At this stage, the
heroin supply structures that have been referred to frequently throughout this section will now be illuminated in detail in order to further develop an understanding
of the social associations and trade arrangements within the subcultural network.

7.3.3

Supply Structures

7.3.3.1

Spread

Although the supply of heroin seems to take place chiefly in Lerwick, interviewees also mention dealing activities in other parts of the island. These are predominantly towns and bigger villages relatively well connected to Lerwick by
public transport, such as Scalloway, Mossbank, Brae, Sandwick or the peninsula
Burra [e.g. Rick, C, 13, 22–29]. One interviewee, who lives in a small village in
the north of Shetland, asserts that heroin use and supply potentially take place in
any part of Shetland as long as the relevant people live there [Duncan, N, 1,
4–15].

7.3 The Heroin Scene’s Social Network and Mentality: Subject to an Underlying…

7.3.3.2

167

The Shetland Way of Dealing: Exemplified by ‘Small Group Supply’

In the context of presenting and discussing Shetland’s generally intermittent heroin
supply, the user Christian has been cited with respect to the impact of Shetland’s
isolated island location on the mentality of local dealers. Consistent with the arguments of the Shetlander, ‘the physical barrier’ of the island location prevents
Shetland from becoming part of the catchment area of ‘big bad drug dealers’
[13, 36–47].
In the following section, the interviewee gives a well thought-out analysis of the
mentality and system of heroin dealing and supply on the island. He states that stories circulate among heroin users about incidents of major urban dealers seeking out
certain islanders with whom they have been involved in drug deals in Shetland to
reinforce their claims by threat of violence. Nonetheless, his account suggests more
than once that the overall atmosphere can be characterised as community-minded.
He describes the Shetland way of drug dealing as unprofessional and amateurish in
contrast with the drugs trade on the urban mainland. With the term, ‘the Shetland
way of drug dealing’, he seems primarily to refer to the type of small group supply
among, for example, the occasional or employed regular users presented above. He
describes this Shetland way as based to a great extent on a companionable exchange
amongst users, who, when necessary, take turns owing and giving each other heroin
or money. His statement is corroborated by other participants, who describe similar
behavioural norms of mutual assistance, which has been designated as ‘bouncing
off each other’ by the Shetland client Mona [8, 8–23].
He also applies the term the Shetland way to the commonly reported accumulation of debts with dealers. He explains that debts are usually not recovered by force.
In contrast to the above-indicated raw style of some urban dealers, Shetlanders are
portrayed as tending to wait patiently for their money, even if several thousand
pounds are owed. He attributes this patience and lack of violence to the small size
of the island and the fact that everyone knows each other and knows each other’s
business. Violence as a means of enforcement would promptly be sanctioned by
both the community and the police. A punch in the face usually constitutes the most
extreme act of violence between Shetlanders, the Shetlander Ben (N) declares [19,
6–20, 7]. He describes how users he knows travelled to the British mainland to purchase heroin and experienced a rude awakening when they encountered ‘real’ urban
dealers, who were armed and forceful. Christian labels this urban approach as
‘proper [serious] dealing’, reinforced by what he calls the ‘fear factor’. While he
maintains that in Shetland, ‘nobody really makes enemies’, urban drugs he regards
as often characterised by aggressive or adversarial attitudes. Shetland’s tightly
woven social network appears to discourage people from engaging in violent behaviour. On the island, dealers and consumers seemingly entertain predominantly
friendly relations.
Christian (O): Bu’ it’s a funny, like Shetland’s a funny place in, you you’ll be in a room
full of 10 people an’ you kno’ that he owes him four grant he owes him 600 quid [pound],
he owes him like. An’ they all, everybody owes each other all these amounts of money bu’
they all sort of sit an’ talk because it’s such small place, ken? You can, nobody really makes

168

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

enemies in Shetland, ken? An’ you might, you might sit in a room an’ there might be like
20,000 pounds outstandin’ between all these people but they all sort of sit and chat, ken?
Whereas in, for example, Glasgow you get your fuckin’ arm broken for 50 quid, ken wha’
I mean? Bu’ up here it’s jus’ like ‘Ach’. People jus’ run off backstage. It’s no, as far as I’m
aware it doesn’t really seem to have a Maybe a punchin’ in the face, that’s as far as it gets,
ken, like. I think, I think a lo’ o’ people ge’, ah, in a bit of debts, ken, because they’re used
to the, ah, Shetland way of drug dealin’, which is, it’s not even proper drug dealin’. It’s
really jus’ fuckin’ you owe a bit, you owe a bit’ an’ you give that back. An’ then they go
doon to the mainland, they go an’ get a bit and they realise, ken, it’s proper, people they are
dealin’ wi’ guns an’ they don’ give a fuck, ken? They’re quite happy, fuckin’ Yeah, there’s
a few guys that told some horrible things that happened to them goin’ doon Sooth, like.
Yeah, they don’t, they don’t mess around at all […] So, people have a bit of a, there’s this
fear factor on the mainland. There, there isn’t really up, anything up here, ken? People can’t
really threaten anybody up here, because everybody kno’s each other an’ everybody kno’s
that, ken, person A’s threatened by person B but they kno’ person B is not connected. If
everybody kno’s each other’s business up here, so there’s never any real violence, ken? Or
crime or anythin’ like that. An’, an’ on the mainland again there’s like this, drug dealin’ is
usually mixed up with various other kinds o’ crime, ken? Whether it’s stealin’ cars or credit
cards fraught or Most people I kno’ that are like kinna like any kinna seriousness with drug
dealin’ are into lots of different crimes ken? Whereas up here it’s fairly amateurish kinda
not really drug deals, ken? It’s jus’ some guy tha’ll get a bit, chop it up an’ give their pals
an’ they’ll give him some money. It’s like, you’re not goin’ oot, ken, fightin’ wi’ people an’
tryin’ to take other people’s patches wi’ guns an’ like that. Quite amateurish up here actually. Bu’, not that I think we should be getting’ any more professional. Bu’ I think it’s, if
somebody did come up wi’ professional mind an’ didn’t take smack, came up, go’ a good
way to get it in, like Shetland would be full of fuckin’ junkies, ken? Because again it’s jus’
the the economic an’ social set-up it’s jus’, ah, ken, all this boys goin’ off to the oil rigs, ken,
comin’ back, shit loads o’ money, nothin’ to do for a fortnight. Guys who go off to the
fishin’ an’ things - the same thing: They’ve got lots of money an’ two weeks off an’ nothin’
to do. An’ smack’s a perfect drugs if you’ve got lots of money an’ nothin’ to do, ken? You
easily pass two weeks an’ do fuck all. [13, 36–15, 16]

On balance, Christian views the conditions and mentality of dealing in Shetland
as a desirable defence against the severe extension of heroin addiction on the island,
which in his opinion does not yet exist. However, he expresses concern about the
possibility of such a problem developing because of potentially changing circumstances. According to his assumptions, the scope of serious heroin dependence
could significantly grow if a dealer with professional drugs trading abilities entered
the island’s heroin business. He supports his argument by pointing to the large number of men working in very well paid jobs, such as fishing and the oil industry, typically involving a rhythm of 2 weeks at work and 2 weeks off. In line with his as well
as other participants’ reported observations, a considerable number of hard working
and heavily heroin using men are employed in one of these areas, which might
provide a suitable prerequisite for a life determined by a heroin habit.
Examples of small groups of occasional and regular employed heroin users
supplying their personal user circles with the opiate have already been given earlier.
The descriptions provided by Oliver and Oscar with respect to their specific ways
of obtaining and distributing the drug within their respective cliques have demonstrated how small group supply can be organised and enacted. Interviewees state
that the persons buying the supply [either by travelling to the urban mainland themselves

7.3 The Heroin Scene’s Social Network and Mentality: Subject to an Underlying…

169

or by frequenting a local dealer] and thus accepting the risk of arrest would in return
receive extra heroin on each occasion [e.g. Oscar, 8, 29–33]. Following Oliver’s as
well as Oscar’s and Justin’s accounts, the person fulfilling the role of the group
supplier often changes on a rotating basis. If someone were intending to buy some
heroin from a local dealer, their specific relationship with that person also appears
to be of central importance. Oliver explains that if the dealer does not know a person, then he may refuse to serve him out of caution. Hence, the personal willingness
to adopt the risky role combined with the specific connection between dealer and
customer are probably essential determinants in heroin deals.
R: And then you can take turns doing that or is it just you, who who would share with the
others?
Oliver: Aaah, probably take turns. Yeah. Take turns. I mean, sometimes, obvious situations,
sometimes like, maybe, ah, the person who’s sellin’ it, ah, doesn’t kno’ them and doesn’t
want them to kno’ him, so I’m gonna do the business and then maybe another time i’ll be
someone else I’m not very pally with so one o’ my friends will go. Yes, you can imagine
how how it would be. [21, 55–22, 32]

However, this small group supply might be regarded as small-scale distribution
rather than actual dealing. The extra ration of heroin appears to primarily function
as compensation for risk rather than commercial profit.

7.3.3.3

Distributors

Inferred from the interview analysis, the next level of minimal dealing after the
just-described ‘smallest scale distribution’ seems to be dispensing heroin additionally to a limited number of users outwith the private circle of users. Distributing
heroin to other users with the intention to support or even finance one’s individual
drug habit is reportedly as comparatively common in Shetland. Several of the interviewed users claim to engage personally in this form of funding. In the following
quotation, the long-term user Gerry, originating from urban mainland Britain, gives
details about his time as a regular injector who earned his daily dose of half a gram
of heroin by collecting money from six people and consequently delivering the opiate
to them. He affirms that during this period, which ended about 6 months ago, he
only had to pay for his daily intake on a few days when he did not find the time to
collect and distribute. On these relatively exceptional days, he claims to have used
only half the amount he would have otherwise. This discrepancy demonstrates for
him that the extra half on distribution days he would not have ‘needed’; he was
motivated rather by the opportunity to consume.
Gerry (C): […] There was no point in doin’ it half-heartedly when I didn’t need to. When
I quite easily could ge’ a half gram an’ score a half gram a day without doin’ very much.
I just needed to go on me bike an’ pick up money from half a dozen people, kinna thing.
An’ that would be my half gram made for free kinda thing. Whereas a lo’ o’ the time when
it came down to kinna like maybe Giro day or, eh, project doctor day an’ it would become
more o’ a time scale issue. No’ havin’ the time to run around an’ get all this money together
an’ get bits an’ pieces for a few people. There would be days when I was like ‘Right, I need

170

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

to go an’ outright pay out o’ my own pocket. An’ most of the time when tha’ happened it
was usually 20, 30 pound. Bu’, yeah, when I was kinda goin’ aound an’ scorin’ for half a
dozen people i’ was usually kinna 50, 60 quid worth tha’ I was takin’. Kinda thing. Bu’
again, like I said, a lo’ o’ tha’ was greed an’ not need. […] [16, 28–44]

While several interviewees also mention distributing heroin to support their habits,
Gerry offers the most detailed and illustrative description of this financing strategy.
He seems to be able to almost fully finance a daily consumption of half a gram of
heroin, which bought ‘conventionally’ from a dealer, would amount to around
50 GBP. In the preceding chapter about the outward appearance and the features of
the overall heroin scene, interviewees argue that dealing constitutes the only feasible illegal option in Shetland to obtain money for drugs. Hence, the number of
people occupied with this activity might be higher than elsewhere. In consequence,
distributing, which could be denominated as a minor form of dealing, may also be a
relatively common and widespread means of financing drug use. Distributors typically get their goods either directly from dealers or from someone in between who
could be denominated as ‘middleman’. The denominations ‘dealer’, ‘distributor’,
and ‘middleman’ all refer to individuals who deal heroin from various positions, with
‘dealer’ designating probably the highest position within the supply hierarchy.
Interviewees do not differentiate clearly between the sequential levels of supplying.
Thus, concrete notions of the individual positions within the island subculture,
which can be vague in any case, are relatively blurred.
In the following section, the position of the heroin dealer will be depicted and
discussed. For illustration purposes, the example of an interviewed heroin dealer
will additionally be given.

7.3.3.4

Dealers

Different participants report that, in general, heroin and party drugs, such as ecstasy,
cannabis, and speed, are not supplied by the same person. The Shetlander Ben (N)
guesses the number of recreational drug dealers to be 30, whereas typically small
numbers – between two and four – sell heroin at one time. The reason in his view is
the considerably more criminalised and stigmatised status of the opiate compared to
party drugs [12, 15–28]. Justin (C), himself a relatively young heroin user in his
early 20s, explains that party drugs are frequently dealt by young people, even
teenagers, who – according to the same principle as the heroin distributors described
above – sell a number of ecstasy tablets in order to finance ‘a good night out’ rather
than to make a commercial profit. The young interviewee asserts that as a rule,
heroin is sold by older people, with the youngest he knows being in his mid-20s and
the oldest few in their 40s and 50s. On the one hand, more and especially younger
people might prefer the party drug trade. On the other hand, to younger Shetlanders,
heroin in dealing amounts might be less accessible than to certain older people, who
can resort to specific contacts and connections.
Justin (C): The recreational drugs are done by a lo’ o’ the young people. Especially more
recently I have noticed they’re gettin’ younger, the dealers. I ‘ink 17, 18 year olds who are

7.3 The Heroin Scene’s Social Network and Mentality: Subject to an Underlying…

171

just gettin’ to the age to get into the pubs an’ stuff an’ tha’, they’re goin’ out an’ they’re
sellin’ maybe 10, 20 Es a night, just to make themselves enough money tae have a good
night out kind of thing. A lot of younger ones got into dealin’ bu’ no’ heroin, recreational
drugs, speed an’ ecstasy. […] The youngest was probably 24 up to 40/50. [3, 30–38]

At a different point in the interview, Justin states that people selling heroin often
also deal cannabis, as well as cocaine and amphetamines [1, 43–47].

Example of a Small Dealer
Rick (C) describes his experiences of being part of the supply network around a
dealer who was central to the island trade a few years prior to the interview. Although
his descriptions resemble those of the distributor Gerry (C) above, he still gives the
impression of having played a more significant role since he claims to not only have
collected money and delivered drugs in return but actually to have supplied a group
of more than ten people regularly with heroin. He explains that during his dealing
activities, he was financially in the position to fly back and forth between Shetland
and the urban mainland in order to buy heroin. Moreover, he gives a detailed account
of the extent to which his own heroin habit spiralled due to the availability of the
opiate and his disposable profit. Eventually, he took stock of his situation and
decided to give up dealing and his escalatory lifestyle in favour of legal safety
[10, 29–11, 11].

Example of a Significant Dealer
In this section, the detailed account of a fairly significant heroin dealer will be
presented and analysed. The Shetlander and Lerwick man Philip (N) outlines how
a friend of his approached him several years prior to the interview and offered a
small amount of heroin to him, which he tried and liked. He started using more and
more regularly until after roughly a month, he used daily and developed a physical
dependence. As a consequence, he maintains, his daily intake was constantly growing. At this stage, his friend approached him again and argued that the only option
to finance his increasingly expensive habit would be to sell heroin himself. The deal
was to sell initially half an ounce [ca. 14 g] and eventually an ounce [ca. 28 g] of
heroin and to have the same amount for his personal use. He describes the vicious
circle of using more and more and consequently selling more and more, until virtually his whole day would be occupied with arranging to supply heroin and other
drugs to people.
Philip: You know, um, and so for the two years I was dealin’ I was never in the pubs.
Nobody’s ever seen me, “What’s Philip doin’? Whats he up tae?” […] An’, I just didn’ have
time. Just like “Ooooh, ah, I meet you at such an’ such a place!” Aaah, runnin’ aroon’ after
everybody else and tryin’ to keep money comin’ in, you know? “No, no, I get that myself.”
- “Ah no, that’s mine!” you know, so. It’s, it’s a shit life.[laughs] I’ is! I’m glad I’m out of
it. Honestly! [11, 1–11]

172

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

According to his testimony, his situation, ‘just escalated and escalated and escalated
until the whole town knew he was dealing’ [3, 31–4, 19]. He affirms that for a couple
of years, he entertained a lifestyle of extremely heavy use and intensive dealing. At peak
times, his daily heroin intake amounted to around 5 g a day. He claims to have used
the drug exclusively by smoking, but he also reveals that he was often tempted to
inject in order to save heroin. He designates smoking as a relatively wasteful route
of administration, since a considerable proportion of the substance burns off without
being absorbed by the body. He also admits that he felt envious of the instant effect
a heroin injection had on people he watched using intravenously. Nonetheless, he
explains that due to his profound fear of needles, he never even attempted to inject.
He claims to be glad he restricted himself to smoking, as he believes that his situation
would otherwise have escalated even further [5, 32–46]. In his citation below, the
extent of the legal and social risk he was taking during his supply activities becomes
evident. Pure luck and police incompetence saved him from being caught and incarcerated for presumably a considerable length of time. As well as heroin, he claims
to have supplied substantial amounts of various other drugs, including cannabis,
ecstasy and speed.
Philip: Yeah, so I mean, yeah. An’ I was handlin’ an’ awful lo’ o’ money the whole time,
too, an’ tha’ was, phew, thousands an’ thousands an’ thousands pounds’ worth. Goin’
through me hoose every month, you know, an’ that’sss quite obvious to the neighbours an’
everybody was sayin’ “What is goin’ on?”, so I was very fortunate that I didn’ get sent tae
jail, so. Even the police were sayin’ that. [laughs] They talk to me now! [laughs]
R: Yes, how were you able to…, you know, obviously you were found out but to, um, not
be arrested, to, to keep secretive, or
Philip: Uumm,… I was just very lucky, uumm, the times that they did pull me an’ bust me,
that’s what you call i’, aah, an’ had i’ sit in front o’ them an’ they missed i’. So the police,
it’s the police’s own fault. I mean, they should have had me in jail a long time ago. Uum, i’
was all there si”in’ front o’ them, ounces o’ i’, uumm, an’ they missed the lot.
R: That was at your own, at your own house? […]
Philip: Yeah. An’ almost 500 gram [worth approximately 50,000 pounds]! [laughs] […]
R: Ah yes, that’s a lot.
Philip: So, bye-bye! [laughs] They missed the whole lot, so I was quite fortunate. Bu’ I had
bars a’ hash an’ speed an’ God knows [laughs a bit]. As I say, I was dealin’ everythin’,
ecstasy an’ hash an’ speed an’ heroin, so I was, yeah, days tha’ are rather forgettable.
[laughs] [7, 8–83, 3]

Philip allows a quite detailed look behind the scenes of his previous activities as
a fairly significant heroin dealer. During these few years, he apparently lived a life
comparatively atypical for a Shetlander in the vast extents of his opiate consumption
and supply. His reported daily intake of up to 5 g resembles the amounts specified
by the man quoted above, who declared that he consumed up to 4 g/day when his
close school friend was dealing on a grand scale. He argues his daily dose would
have been smaller if he had injected rather than smoked. In any case, like the aforementioned man, he also seemed to have had unlimited access to the drug, which
consequently allowed his habit to escalate as far as he wanted. Thus, the impression
arises that in contrast to the majority of users, Philip did not experience any external
restrictions, apart possibly from the necessity to maintain the ability to carry out his
daily deals, which constituted the precondition for his enormous drug consumption.

7.3 The Heroin Scene’s Social Network and Mentality: Subject to an Underlying…

173

According to his account, he seems to have managed to reintegrate himself back
into the Lerwick community and find regular employment. As has already been suggested, many interviewees advance the view that once someone becomes publicly
known as a heroin user, and especially dealer, this knowledge will spread across the
island. This will probably result in irreversible exclusion from society and the
island’s employment market. Philip’s depiction of the stigmatisation and social
exclusion he experienced as a result of his heavy involvement with heroin use and
supply appears to involve a complex rather than a simple causal process. He claims
that prior to his heroin years, he was very popular and socially included. During his
heroin years, however, he felt universally rejected and despised, and encountered
massive difficulty in finding a job once he stopped using and supplying and tried to
get back into ordinary employment. Nonetheless, he finally did manage to obtain a
job, which led him to a further job. He describes how he gradually worked his way
back into the Shetland community by proving himself over a period of time and
eventually regaining his original popularity and esteem [17, 25–18, 42].
Philip’s illustration – here reproduced in the form of a brief summary – may
propose that the process and conditions of social stigmatisation and exclusion constitute a far more complex and multilayered phenomenon than is believed by a large
proportion of the heroin using population in Shetland. The overall analysis of the
interviews suggests that stigmatisation and exclusion do have the potential to exert
a major impact on users’ lives, but this impact may constitute less of a fixed constant
than perceived and reported by many interviewees. Interaction between those
involved in heroin use or distribution and the Shetland community, and each party’s
perceptions of the other party, may significantly influence the prospects of somebody who has become publicly known as a heroin user or dealer. Even though many
interviewees express a strong conviction that a life with the label of a heroin user or,
even worse, heroin dealer would lead to permanent social exclusion in many
respects, other participants also outline similar views as Philip. Under specific circumstances, it seems to be possible to re-establish and reintegrate oneself back into
society. These as well as the reciprocal interaction processes outlined above will
receive further analysis and discussion at a later stage of this book. In the next
section, the focus will be on central tendencies regarding the mentality, norms, values
and behaviours within the heroin subculture.

7.3.4

Prevailing Mentality: Insular and Community-Minded?

When debating characteristic features of the Shetland mentality, different participants
use the term insular or expressions carrying a similar meaning. To the occasionally
consuming Shetlander Oliver, for example, ‘insular’ seems to constitute an umbrella
term embracing diverse mentality facets.
Oliver (O): […] Shetland’s a very insular society, maybe wi’ that mentality… still carries
on, even today, even wi’ people, you know, ah, takin’ things like that. Heroin or crack or
wha’ver. Yah… There’s very little crack up here, by the way. [3, 42–45]

174

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

Several other interviewees explain that the island’s drug using cultures exhibit in
many ways the same or similar behavioural and normative patterns as the island
mainstream culture. These patterns will be specified and substantiated in the
following.

7.3.4.1

Defining Community-Mindedness and Specifying Related Aspects

A central and determining quality participants mention in the context of user
mentalities encountered on the Shetland Islands, especially as a differentiator from
urban areas, seems to be the oft-cited special spirit that has already been referred to
as community-mindedness. The main features and properties of the concept have
previously been identified, elaborated and specified with relative precision, thus
raising it to the theoretical level of a central category (cf. Sect. 7.3, Part II).
The definition of community-mindedness could be briefly summarised as a
dichotomous concept fundamentally resting upon a communal, caring attitude on
the one hand and a strong degree of social control, exclusiveness or even stigmatisation
on the other hand.3,4
On the evidence of interviews, this quality essentially arises from Shetland’s
small size, low population and geographical isolation – factors that combine to produce a close-knit network of social relations promoting both care and censure.
Behaviours communally regarded as deviant are subject to social sanctions exerted
by the general community. These include gossiping and, ultimately, exclusion from
smaller or greater parts of the island’s community life. Furthermore, the concept of
community-mindedness entails what has been termed cliqueyness, which refers to
the social make-up of the island in general as well as of its subgroups, such as the
heroin scene. A central property of cliqueyness is the inclusion of perceived insiders
and the exclusion of perceived outsiders, which again appears to be related to
stigmatisation and possibly exclusion of people engaging in aberrant behaviour.
However, the predominant focus of this particular concept relies on feeling and
acting as part of an exclusive group open to specific select members rather than to
everyone. Again, cliquey, exclusive social structures are reportedly found both in
the mainstream and in the heroin subculture, and manifest themselves as a great

3
In an investigation about aboriginal women survivors of sexual abuse, McEvoy and Daniluk
define community-mindedness ‘the sense of understanding that, individual actions, both positive
and negative, reflect on the entire community’ (1995); hence, exclusively referring to the social
caring aspect of the dichotomous conception employed in this study.
4
Alfred Adler speaks about a community spirit (Gemeinschaftsgefühl) as an attitude leading to a
‘we’, which refers to the ability and preparedness to cooperate with other people regarding the
common weal (1973). With an increasing sense of community, the degree of social control also
intensifies, since due to the strong focus on the common good, everything that does not correspond
to and thus endangers the corporate feeling is rejected and regarded as deviant. The definition of
community-mindedness as used in this study also contains these two sides, community spirit and
social control.

7.3 The Heroin Scene’s Social Network and Mentality: Subject to an Underlying…

175

array of smaller and bigger sections and subsections, groups and groupings
and circles, and sub-circles. The relatively abstract definition and explanation of
community-mindedness will now be concretised by tangible examples provided by
interviewees.

Everyone Knowing Each Other
Community-mindedness in Shetland is apparently closely related to the small size
of the island and the fact that virtually all Shetlanders know each other. Several
participants have stated the same with respect to the island’s heroin subculture.
Christian (O) has been cited above in the section dealing with contacts between the
various user groups. Although he only uses occasionally, he describes ties to heavy,
habitual users that stem from his childhood and youth. Presumably, as a consequence of Shetland’s small size and close-knit social structure, they have not been
broken. [8, 41–43]. Ben (N), confirming recurrent phases of heavy, habitual heroin
use, maintains that he knows everybody in Shetland who uses heroin, even people
using very rarely [14, 4–12].
Besides the recurrently outlined tendency to build exclusive cliques on a personal social level, there also seems to exist a more general social level of, from the
standpoint of society, higher order. On this level, people might be deemed to share
the common identity of a Shetlander, possibly providing an essential prerequisite
for the creation of a communal, caring spirit in most diverse contexts. Consequently,
the island’s societal network could be regarded as characterised by both social ex- as
well as inclusiveness.

Friendship, Trust and Care Among Heavy, Habitual Users
Various interviewed users, especially those who have had contact with urban heroin
scenes, share the view that, in general, no reliable friendships exist within heroin
scenes in British cities. Shetland heroin users, by comparison, are frequently pictured as tending to entertain relationships between each other of binding and caring
character. Claire (C), who lived and used in different British cities for considerable
periods of time, argues that due to the small size of the island, Shetland junkies cannot avoid each other and are therefore liable to treat each other courteously and
amicably. She explains that this obligation does not exist in equivalent city contexts.
She adds that, on the whole, habitually using islanders do not get into states of
financial, physical and emotional misery and consequent desperation to the degree
that their urban counterparts do. Hence, the island conditions encourage heroin
users to treat each other less egotistically, violently and ruthlessly than they might
do in a metropolitan environment.
Claire (C): You can’t even trust your friend really, there’s no such thing as a friend down
south. When you’re a junkie.
R: And that’s different up here?

176

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

Claire: Well, I suppose, you can’t hide from each other up here. [laughs a bit] And also
there’s not that desperation stage. Most people anyway. [8, 51–9, 8]

The restriction of the focus in this context to habitual users relies on the assertion
of many participants that, in general, antisocial behaviours occur primarily or even
solely amongst habitual, dependent drug users. In the absence of forceful physical
and emotional craving, occasional, recreational users are assigned a significantly
greater ability to bond according to sympathy, friendship and comradeship – whether
in an urban or in a rural environment.
The occasional user Christian maintains that even though he lives in a city on
the British mainland, he has always restricted his heroin use to visits and stays in
Shetland. He feels, he cannot trust and rely on urban users, who in his opinion
ultimately pursue their own benefit. Consequently, city scenes are usually ‘really
really dodgy’. His Shetland using mates, in contrast, he purports to trust entirely
[19, 28–33].
The caring attitude often brought up by interviewees when characterising the
predominant mentality amongst Shetland heroin users has already been explored in
Oscar’s descriptions (C) of his personal user circle. This group he perceives as ‘a
big family’ of which everyone would accommodate each other if in need, such as
when experiencing withdrawal symptoms [7, 34–39]. The occasional consumer
Christian summarises the central aspects of the island-typical community-minded
caring attitude also reflected in the mentality of the island’s local heroin subculture.
The Shetlander declares that in Shetland compared to other places, and especially
British cities, people look after each other to a greater degree. He continues that the
island’s social welfare system in any case cares for indigent Shetlanders, but that
also incomers, such as habitual homeless heroin users from the mainland, receive
the social care they need. He describes a specific system of behavioural norms and
rules apparently organising desirable, acceptable, undesirable and unacceptable
behaviours, ‘within certain junkie factions’. According to his arguments, this normative system aims to regulate the scene in terms of preventing escalations and
severe damage in the context of heavy intravenous consumption. He contrasts
Shetland’s community-based social nature, reflected both in the community’s as
well as in the heroin scene’s handling of people in need, with the character of cities
determined by indifference and egocentrism.
Christian (O): […] Umm, not, well, in Shetland, I suppose, people are tryin’ to look after
each other more in Shetland, ken? You don’t really, ken, when you’re friends with someone
by an’ large you would help them, kinna thing. And Shetland’s quite good at sor’ o’ lookin’
after its own. An’ even, but then tha’ excess has to go as well an’ they come off the boat,
ken, an’ they get looked after, bu’ As far, back to the heroin Shetland seems to be… quite
good in like, ah, or certain certain fractions within the junkies are quite good at lookin’ after
each other, ken, an’ makin’ sure nobody’s goin’ too far an’ getting’ each other kinna ‘Watch
what you’re doin.”, ken? You’re getting’ too deep into tha.’ or ‘You shouldn’t be doin’ this
or tha”, ken? An’, it’s it seems to be a reasonably caring kinna aspect to Whereas on the
mainland it’s everybody themselves kinna thing an’ nobody gives a fuck abou’ anybody
else as long as you’ve got your smack then you’re happy. Whereas up here it does seem to

7.3 The Heroin Scene’s Social Network and Mentality: Subject to an Underlying…

177

be a bit more, phh, community based, ken, addiction kinna thing. Tha’s just’ the nature o’
Shetland as it is, I suppose. Bu’ i’ is quite a good thing. [5, 1–12]

Besides a comparatively pronounced degree of mutual care, the island’s heroin
scene has also been described as having a relatively relaxed atmosphere. Amongst
others, the Shetlander and long-term user Angus (N) believes the reason for
Shetland’s peaceful nature lies, on the one hand, in everyone knowing each other,
and on the other hand in the low levels of crime. Hence, the island’s heroin scene
differs from the typical urban ‘junkie thing’ [1, 27–2, 2]. With the term ‘junkie
thing’, he refers to extremely egotistical and thus socially undesirable behaviours he
experienced amongst dependent drug users in British cities. Even though Angus
points to the absence of an urban-like junkie scene on the islands, at a later stage in
his interview, he advances the view that even in Shetland amongst dependent drug
users, no genuine, reliable friendships exist. He argues that the first priority for a
junkie anywhere will always be to obtain drugs. Hence, all social interactions, even
amongst friends, will ultimately be driven by this motivation [6, 9–21]. The central
statement of his argument appears to be that compared to urban conditions, dependent heroin users on the islands usually treat each other amicably, even if he would
not call their relationships ‘genuine friendships’.

Cliqueyness: Excluding Outsiders
The community-minded spirit encountered within the general Shetland culture and
similarly in its heroin subculture has been described as involving high degrees of
care and responsibility towards the common weal. At the same time, it seems to
entail also a fairly strong tendency to identify with one’s personal user group, clique
or circle, while purposefully excluding those regarded as outsiders.
Interviewees have described a variety of criteria according to which, in the
drug-taking context, Shetlanders build exclusive groups. It appears that the general
underlying pattern is based on respective notions of acceptability regarding, for
example, specific types of drugs or routes of administration. Exemplifying this sort
of classification within the island drug scene, the Shetlander and long-term user
Angus (N) explains that cocaine users typically refuse to associate with heroin users
and that the overall culture of heroin users is again subdivided into many individual
groups and is thus ‘very cliquey’ [2, 7–13]. The long-standing urban user Robin
makes a similar observation concerning the relationship of smoking and intravenous
heroin users. As Robin states, smokers tend to condemn injecting as unacceptable,
‘dirty’ and driven by addiction and therefore avoid contact with injectors. Like
Angus, he describes the scenes as ‘very cliquey’. He presents himself as an example
of someone not really accepted into the general heroin using in-group due to his
origin outside Shetland. He explains that Shetlanders, ‘do not like outsiders’. Only
a few specific people are prepared to ‘let him in their clique’. He claims to know
heroin users who have moved to Shetland a decade ago and are still not accepted in
the drug using community [10, 42–3, 11].

178

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

Soothmoother Prejudice
Besides Robin, other participants also assert that Soothmoothers, heroin users, who
have moved to Shetland as incomers from the British mainland, are frequently
regarded as unwanted outsiders. Apparently, they are often referred to pejoratively
as Soothmoothers by both the general and the drug using communities of Shetland.
In explaining why he avoids clients of the drugs project in Lerwick, the Shetlander
Ben (N) claims that many clients are heroin users from the mainland, who are often
‘grassers’. This means that they, for example, play off their knowledge of other
people’s prescriptions towards professionals of the drug support system with the
aim to obtain free drugs. Therefore, in Ben’s view, avoiding mainlanders appears to
be a natural, justified consequence.
R: Do you know a lot of people who go to the drugs project who’re on methadone?
Ben (N): Um, I know a few. Bu’ I disassociate from from them because because they’re
they’re fuckin’, sorry for swearin’, they’re potentially grassers. They use their knowledge
what’s goin’ on in the town to gain prescription drugs, you know? They say, they would say
things like “Wow, I know that so and so is ge”in’ four valium a day, why can I no’ have four
valium a day?”, you know? It’s a taper tac [xxx]. It’s usually, it’s usually, um, wha’ we call
Soothmoothers, that’s people from the mainland tha’ use the project. An’, um, they abuse
the system, you know? So you’ve go’ no’in’ to do with these people. I I I’ve never been to
the project. No. [15, 36–16, 15]

Other interviewed users add that exclusion also occurs amongst Shetlanders.
One Shetland woman emphasises the crucial importance of ‘who you are’, which
determines how you are treated within the heroin scene. If one enjoys a good reputation within certain subsections, they may benefit from support and assistance by
members of this particular group. If a user has a bad reputation, on the other hand,
he might encounter ‘bitching and backstabbing’ [Helen (C)]. It appears the small
size of Shetland strongly promotes the generation of many diverse in- and outgroups that thus act in- or exclusively [1, 29–42].

Cliquey Dealing
While Ben illustrates a tendency to exclude Soothmoothers on the part of native
islanders, many of the interviewed incomers provide accounts of their experiences
of being rejected and excluded. Mark (C) states that many times, he has been forced
to wait until evening to purchase heroin. He attributes this partly to many dealing
people being full-time employed and partly his outsider status. Shetlanders, he
assumes, would be subjected significantly less to such rigid time schedules. He
complains about ‘the cliquey fuckers, who don’t let outsiders in easily’ [4, 12–5, 1].
Lilly (N), like Mark, originates from a large British city and outlines similar experiences. In her opinion, Shetlanders are prepared to share drugs amongst their own but
not with Soothmoothers, whom they also would prefer to keep at distance from
Shetland’s cultural institutions, for example pubs. The analysis of Lilly’s argument
might generate the impression that the islanders are wary of their society and culture

7.3 The Heroin Scene’s Social Network and Mentality: Subject to an Underlying…

179

being undermined by incomers. As a precaution, they may exclude incomers in
order to protect their socio-economical and cultural properties (cf. Sect. 7.2.4). The
interviewee believes that despite the Shetlanders’ attempts to fend off incoming
influences, the island will change according to global cultural and social trends.
Lilly (N): And tha’ is one thing I have noticed up here, they are selfish. Especially when the
drugs are concerned. Drugs an’ money.
R: Right. Like ‘they’ you mean the dealers?
Lilly: Everybody.
R: Users as well?
Lilly: Yeah, everybody. Even normal everyday people, ken? Like “Where’s the money?”
[xxx]
[…]
R: More than in Manchester or other places?
Lilly: Yeah. I think so. I think so. I mean, obviously they’re no’ as nasty as down in [British
city], ken, you know, goin’ out robbin’ old grannies an’ stabbin’ in the back, you know, rob
the mothers an’ all, you know? They don’t do that up here. Bu’ they are greedy. Yeah.
I think so. Yeah, definitely. Yeah. No, they don’t like to share. Um, share amongst themselves, yeah, bu’ they don’t like to share with outsiders. Ken, they don’t, ‘Soothmoothers’
as they call us, ken? They don’t like us comin’ in, you know? I dare say that if if the true
Shetlanders, if they could get their way, then all those incomers would be barred from the
pubs, you know wha’ I mean? It’s their pubs, ken? ‘Cos that that’s what they’re like. It’s
their island, it’s their fuckin’, you know I mean? Which I can understand in a way, you
know, bu’ you you go’ to remember you’re no’ in the 18th century anymore, you know
I mean, times changed. They might not but believe me, the island will, you know I mean?
[14, 28–15, 12]

The Shetland woman Claire (C) believes that conditions have already eased.
Although she has observed the exclusion of incomers from buying drugs, she claims
to perceive a relaxation of this previously rigid segregation. She attributes this transformation to the significant increase of heroin use that affects both incomers and
islanders [9, 12–19].
However, the motivation for cliquey dealing does not appear to be restricted to
solely excluding strangers in order to defend what is perceived as one’s own.
Sometimes also islanders are excluded from drug supply. The Shetland woman
Cathy (C) affirms that one of Shetland’s central dealers would not sell any heroin
to her due to a mutual lack of sympathy [4, 25–32].
Besides prejudice and sympathy, participants also name another reason for the
cliquey, exclusive style of dealing. Interviewed users – incomers and Shetlanders
alike – give accounts of the concerted efforts dealers make to conceal their stigmatised and illegal activities from the public and especially the police. Lilly (N) and
Helen (C) both describe how a dealer tends to exclusively sell to a strictly limited
number of select persons who again sell to other select persons and so on until the
drug eventually reaches its ultimate consumers. Even though both Lilly and Helen
claim to understand the necessity for caution, they still express frustration about not
just being able to buy heroin when craving it [Lilly, 13, 16–14, 24; Helen, 5, 24–47].
An account from a dealer perspective concerning cliquey dealing corroborating the
two females’ statements is provided by the Shetlander Rick (C). He describes his
strategy of only supplying specific people during the period he was dealing a few

180

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

years before the interview. Members of this specified group could contact him
directly, but he ignored attempts at contact by people outside this group [10, 38–11, 8].
Norms and behaviours in relation to secrecy and concealment linked to heroin use
and supply will receive explicit and detailed attention in the next subsection. Before
that, a further effect reported to be associated with the island heroin scene’s cliquey
social network will be explored.
Grassers
Several interviewees complain about, or simply mention, the disturbing influence of
‘grassers’ amongst the island’s drug users. ‘Grassing on someone’, interviewees
explain, means telling the police about someone else’s heroin use or supply-related
activities. Mark (C) points out that the role of grassers within the drug using island
community is greater than in his home city [3, 3]. The Shetlander Oscar (C) explains
that a dealer exclusively supplying specific people as opposed to every user
acquainted with him might face the risk of being ‘grassed up’ by those who feel
frustrated or left out [7, 6–13]. The long-term urban user Robin (C) also perceives
a relatively frequent occurrence of grassing in Shetland. As an explanation, he cites
the lack of violent crime – without fear of violent retaliation, people dare to inform
on others. On the mainland, he argues, a person ‘would have signed their life away,
if they informed on somebody’. He adds that, according to his observations, users
originating from urban areas are obviously more inclined to withhold information
from the police than their island counterparts [7, 17–34].
As has already been indicated, Shetland’s insular, close-knit social structure
appears to also encourage certain anti-social manners among subcultural fellows,
such as defaming and back-stabbing.

7.3.5

Junkie Mentality in Shetland

One interviewee gives details of their personal experience of being ‘sold to the
police’ by an acquainted ‘junkie’, who intended to deliberately harm them. This
interviewee, however, advances the view that behaviours such as grassing have only
relatively recently begun to influence the heroin culture. The participant argues that
the roots of this type of consciously ‘malicious’ behaviour lie in the ‘junkie mentality’.
They believe that a certain faction of the overall heroin scene constitutes a ‘little
subculture’ of its own with its own behavioural norms. Within the scope of this
‘doggy dog’ subsection, the interviewee regards behaviours such as stealing from
and informing on each other as relatively acceptable and ‘normal’.
I: […] So, I’d been goin’ there for a while [Shetland drugs project], when it all happened,
when my house was raided. Aand, they were lookin’ for far more substantial amounts. Than
wha’ I had. And that also made me think about the fickleness of junkies, that Somebody to
tell the police tha’ I was keepin’ huge quantities of drugs in my house bu’, ah, I hadnae
imagined that anybody would mean me that much harm. So that was a lesson as well.

7.3 The Heroin Scene’s Social Network and Mentality: Subject to an Underlying…

181

R: I didn’ think that can happen. I mean, that someone does do such harm to anybody
else.
I: Well, I was always sor’ of tryin’ my best to see the dignity in people, however much I
might disagree with their behaviour. But this particular person - I can’t see anythin’ bein’
there. Ah. there were circumstances that lead me, lead me to that point, um, bu’ I,… I didn’t
believe that anybody could do tha’, you know?… That anybody could be that malicious.
Bu’ I’ve maybe changed my perceptions. As wha’ addictive disease does to the mentality,…
to the compassion in in several people. Maybe not everybody. I I resisted the concept of a
junkie mentality. But now I see, yup, I can see that there are general behaviours that come
wi’ the territory.
R: You saw that like associated with addicted heroin use? Like this maliciousness?
I:… Not in everybody, no. Bu’ in a… in a kinna little subculture. Tha’ was like doggy dog.
‘You do this to me, I do that to you’, ‘I steal your money - this is okay, because I’m a
junkie’. An’ Shetland tha’s always been a very warm sharin’ compassionate place to me. So
I’ve been shocked. [4, 12–44]

The person presents a sharply contrasted picture of the seemingly degenerate
underworld on the one hand and the caring, kind-hearted and empathetic place, they
had hitherto perceived Shetland to be, on the other. Her account may to some degree
be influenced by the desire to maintain an idyll of Shetland. Consequently, she
might refuse to integrate this type of frightening and undesirable behaviour into the
overall Shetland mentality, instead attributing such phenomena to aberrant
subcultures.
The relatively recent spread of a junkie mentality has also been described by
most other interviewed users. The Shetland woman Mona (C) has observed that
certain ‘people started stealing off each other’, which previously would never have
taken place. In her opinion, behaviours of this sort are often exhibited by people
who have spent their previous wealth on drug use. Furthermore, she claims to have
noticed an increase in drug-related crime, which she attributes to the recent rise in
incoming heroin users [4, 29–34]. Similar views have been expressed by others as
well. It is possible that such sentiments are to some degree coloured by ‘Soothmoother
prejudice’. Still, such statements should not be dismissed as mere socially shared
constructs without any actual basis in fact.

7.3.5.1

In-Group/Out-Group – Changing Perspectives

All interviewed occasional heroin users claim to sustain a conscious distance from
people they perceive as junkies. The Shetlander Christian (O), for example, voices
his contempt for certain addicted heroin users he regards as ‘junkie scum’, and
insists that he does not want to be associated with this ‘silly sort of scene’ by anyone
in Shetland. He explains his strict and clear detachment from everyone he sees as
belonging to this group, whose behaviour and attitude are at odds with his own.
Christian (O): […] So I don’ want to get intae it, I don’ wanna be known as or seen with
the junkie scum, I mean. Because I don’ like the scene they’ve created for themselves. This
kinna bitter bitchy back-stabbin’ fuckin’, ah, yes, everybody’s slaggin’ each other off an’
arguing about petty shit An’ everybody’s got their own little tooter an’ their own bits of foil

182

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

an’, ken, nobody’ll share fuck all. A silly little sort of scene ken, an’ everybody’s just like,
ah, phonin’ each other up the whole time an’ ‘I’m fuckin’, oh man, I’m shakin’, you got
anythin’?’ an’ ‘You owe me a bit for the last time!’ They’re [8, 9–20]

Angus (N), also originating from the islands, asserts to having held a similar
attitude in the past. He states to have perceived injecting as repellent, decadent and
morally unacceptable. Using the same terminology as Christian, Angus explains
that he perceived injectors as ‘junkie scum’, until he himself started injecting. He
claims to have observed a similar pattern of behaviour in a large number of injecting
heroin users who condemned intravenous drug use while they were still smoking,
but accepted it once they graduated to the needle [14, 39–52]. According to Angus’s
as well as other interviewees’ descriptions, the number of injectors has significantly
increased with the attached stigma having concomitantly decreased over the past
years. Both tendencies probably depend on and influence each other mutually.
7.3.5.2

Mainland Mentality in Shetland

The opinion cited above that incomers can be considered responsible for the rise in
drug-related criminal behaviours in Shetland is also extended to include other undesirable junkie tendencies by several interviewees. While some interview extracts seem to
support this assertion, others contradict it. A supporting example is given personally by
one urban participant. His apparent burglary is referred to by himself [4, 4] and several
of the interviewed users [e.g. Helen, C, 6, 15]. He explains that due to an inadequate
treatment measure by the drugs project, he lost his nerve and tried to steal money in
order to counteract his withdrawal symptoms with illegal drugs. He judges his criminal
behaviour as impulsively born out of desperation. Furthermore, he seems to regard his
one-off burglary as ‘normal’ and appropriate in an anonymous, urban setting but inappropriate in the small, personal community of Shetland [3, 47–4, 4]. Other users express
their disapproval of the transgression both in legal and social terms.
The townsman Robin (C) provides a further example of urban behaviour taking
place inappropriately in the island setting. He cites a previous experience of being
owed money by islanders as a formative influence on his own behaviour. He
describes himself as still fitted with ‘his mainland head on his shoulders’ during his
first weeks on the island. This was exemplified by his reinforcement of drug debts
being paid off according to the dealer’s – in this context his – demands. He reflects
that his aggressive and forceful reaction towards people who owed him money for
drugs would have been commonplace in an urban environment but not on the island.
As a consequence, he explains, large parts of the general heroin using community
judged him to be bad tempered and aggressive. While he claims to have suffered
from being labelled, he appears to understand why it occurred: He had violated the
local behavioural norms that prescribe mutual patience and consideration. Against
the background of his prior life in different urban heroin scenes, he describes the
island heroin users as much ‘softer’.
R: But why do you think people up here judge you so much whereas somewhere else like
in Aberdeen they wouldn’t?
Robin (C): Aah, well, I suppose partly I’m to blame for tha’ myself. Ah, when we were
usin’ drugs, when I first came up, as I says, I still had the mainland head on my shoulders

7.3 The Heroin Scene’s Social Network and Mentality: Subject to an Underlying…

183

and up here people are very relaxed when they’re owed money, you know? Like they wait
five months. Where I came fae if you told a person tha’ you would pay him the followin’
day, you paid him the followin’ day or if not you went and see him and gave them an explanation why you never had his money. Well, Shetland people didnae dae this wi’ me up here.
Aaand, aah, I regret to say tha’ I acted in the way that I would act on the mainland. No’ as
bad, naewhere near as bad, nothin’ like i’. Bu’ I suppose tha’ was wha’ kinda se’ i’ off to
people. […] I wasnae used to the way Shetlanders are. I’ took me a while to ge’ to know
tha’ the island people are very patient up here, they wait for their money, they don’t get the
way like people ge’ on the mainland. Aah, ah, only two people, and tha’ was wha’ caused
people “Oooh, he’s a real bad person, he’s go’ a real bad temper.”
[…]
R: And you say that people up here are softer than on the mainland?
Robin: Aye, definitely! Aye, definitely! Believe me, they wouldnae last probably 20 minutes in
some of the schemes in Glasgow, you know? They just wouldnae last 20 minutes. [8, 10–39]

As already mentioned, many Shetland interviewees assert to have noticed a
recent spread of junkie tendencies. These undesirable developments starting to
emerge within sections of the island heroin scene’s descriptive features are commonly associated with the influx of urban incomers. Although this trend is probably
influenced by mainlanders, other factors are likely to play decisive roles also. A number
of Shetland interviewees derogatively speak about urban heroin scenes as ‘junkie’
scenes. Nonetheless, especially those who have lived in urban Britain for some time
or even those who buy their drugs in mainland cities probably contribute to importing junkie norms and behaviours to the island heroin scene when returning to
Shetland. One example of this seems to be the significant increase in injecting as
route of administering not only heroin but also amphetamines, ecstasy and other
drugs. A relatively recent trend towards injecting drug use is presented as occurring
equally amongst islanders and mainlanders. This change in behaviour may be viewed
as part of a globally determined drug use trend that first emerged on the British
mainland before becoming noticeable on the Shetland Islands. Thus, the relatively
widespread inclination to blame the influx of Soothmoothers for undesirable social
developments might result from a combination of actual, observable facts and a
commonly shared reality manifested in a prejudice against incomers. The latter
seems to be associated with a collective anxiety that the island’s cultural inheritance
may be endangered by outsiders, who rather than adapting to the local culture
impose their own in Shetland.
While incomers are likely to have an impact on the island’s culture and mentality,
this impact will presumably be of relative rather than absolute character. Participants
provide numerous examples of so to speak junkie ways and behaviours. These
include the preparedness to engage in criminal conduct, to take advantage of user
friends and to generally act selfishly and egotistically. The account one Shetlander
offers of his previous personal experiences with a junkie lifestyle has been chosen to
exemplify this phenomenon.
7.3.5.3

Example of ‘Junkie Mentality’ Amongst Shetlanders

The Shetland man, whose identity will not be revealed any further, provides a
differentiated portrait of a period of several years when he entertained the lifestyle

184

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

of – in his words – a junkie. He gives details of his getting involved with heroin
through a Shetland friend who approached him first with the offer to try the drug
and later to sell it [3, 40–43; cf. ‘Example of a significant dealer’, p. 171]. During
this period, his whole life was centred on heroin use, purchase and supply, while
other people’s interests concerned him either not at all or merely peripherally.
Nevertheless, with the exception of 1 year, he claims to have held down a regular job
throughout this period. He completely invested the profits from both his employed
work and his temporary dealing in heroin. During this phase, he acknowledges
to having gradually ‘changed into a bad bad person’, with extremely egotistical,
selfish and antisocial personality traits [6, 37–43]. In his perception, heroin is ‘an
evil drug’ detaching habitual users from themselves and transforming them into
unpleasant, nasty people – junkies [9, 40–10, 7]. The consequence was a mutual
dissociation from his immediate and wider social circle, including family and partner
[10, 41–11, 18]. Due to his energy and time being absorbed by his drug-focussed
lifestyle, he excluded himself from the general social life of pubs and parties and did
not participate in any communal events during these years. The situation changed
completely once he stopped using habitually, generally ceased his heroin-centred
lifestyle and returned to being a popular likeable person – he ‘changed back to being
himself again’ [18, 10].
The cited interview extracts demonstrate that the junkie mentality is not confined
to users from the urban mainland. Furthermore, this man also claims to have been
encouraged to take drugs by a Shetland friend rather than a mainlander. Consequently,
the conclusion drawn above that the reported spread of a junkie mentality in Shetland
is probably strongly influenced by the influx of urban heroin users, but equally
determined by other factors, appears further strengthened. Other factors of comparable weight include knowledge, norms and behaviours imported by Shetlanders who
have had experience with urban heroin scenes, as well as open and receptive social
conditions that allow changes in mentality to develop and spread. These preconditions
will be further illuminated in the subsequent and last chapter on the historical perspective of the island heroin scene and its different stages. Repeatedly cited behavioural
norms and rules will be presented and examined explicitly.

7.3.6

Established Norms, Rules and Rituals
Within the Heroin Scene

7.3.6.1

The Consequences of the Stigma Attached to Heroin

This subsection on scene mentality began with the introduction of the umbrella term
‘insular mentality’, of which community-mindedness had been identified as a
central feature – both among the general public and the heroin using community.
An array of behavioural norms and rules associated with this concept has been
outlined. These include treating each other with care, trust and patience; disapproving
of and sanctioning violence and criminal conduct; defining and labelling in- and

7.3 The Heroin Scene’s Social Network and Mentality: Subject to an Underlying…

185

outsiders; and building cliques and in- and excluding others accordingly. Not only
the islands’ mainstream culture but also its diverse subcultures, including the local
heroin scene, appear to be characterised by a community-based way of thinking and
acting. Thus, it seems that the kind of social networks on the islands’ cultural macro
level are reflected on its various subcultural micro levels. As has already been
pointed out, stigmatisation of behaviours communally perceived as socially deviant
also seems to be closely related to the local community-minded spirit. According to
participants’ numerous statements, heroin use and supply along with criminal conduct in general belong to the behaviours most severely stigmatised on the island.
The general motivation underlying this societal mechanism seemingly corresponds
to the principles of defining in- and out-groups. The consumption of alcohol, even
to excessive degrees, has time and again been shown to enjoy a widely accepted and
desired status amongst the islanders. Given the reported extent of alcohol dependency and the related morbidity, this prejudice seems to be culturally determined
rather than logically derived. This cultural determination might be rooted in alcohol
being integrated in and having belonged to the Shetland culture for a very long time.
The majority of the islanders apparently engage in and identify with its consumption, which according to the interviews represents a communally accepted, shared
and established feature of the island’s way of life. While the consumption of alcohol
and recreational drugs such as cannabis, ecstasy and amphetamines is characterised
as a familiar phenomenon with culturally bonding properties, the opposite appears
to be true for heroin. To a similar extent, interviewees describe average Shetlanders
as feeling comfortable with alcohol consumption; they present them as feeling not
only uncomfortable but even unsettled by the thought of heroin use. Consequently,
they tend to oppose heroin consumption and supply with the same conviction and
emotional intensity with which they welcome alcohol use. Hence, stigmatising heroin use and associated behaviours may be regarded as closely related to the general
Shetland mainstream identity. Heroin consumers seem to be affected by the strong
stigma to differing extents. In this respect, the degree to which a user defines their
identity according to the mainstream culture and the heroin subculture is probably
decisive. Those identifying themselves to a high degree with the mainstream culture
and to a low degree with the subculture might be significantly more affected than
those with a comparatively weaker identification with the mainstream culture and a
stronger identification with the subculture. The designation ‘identity’ relates to the
particular reference group – in this case culture or subculture – someone uses to
define and create their self-image. To experience labelling and exclusion may be
less threatening for someone who considers himself a ‘junkie’ at the margins of
society than for someone who strongly identifies with the general island culture.
While means of self-identification appear to be essential in terms of the degree to
which a user of illegal drugs may be vulnerable to the impact of social stigmatisation, other factors are likely to play a similarly significant role. If somebody fears
losing a lot through sanctions such as labelling and exclusion, they will be more
vulnerable than someone with less at stake. An example constitutes an employed
user, who fears being sanctioned with dismissal should his or her involvement with
heroin become public.

186

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

This anxiety has been expressed by virtually all employed interviewees. Most
believe they would be instantly dismissed if their boss learned of their opiate consumption. Angus (N) and Joanna (C), on the contrary, claim that their relatively
tolerant employers are aware of their heroin use. For these two employers, their
employees’ recreational activities seem to be of little importance as long as their
productivity is not affected [Angus, 7, 24–49; Joanna, 4, 15–20 and 21, 4–8]. To
varying extents, most participants claim to feel threatened by the possibility of
being stigmatised, labelled and socially excluded because of their illegal involvement
with heroin.
This threat is intensified by the Shetland-typical style of newspaper journalism
concerning local breaches of the law: On the basis of the police reports, illegal and
socially deviant conduct is reported circumstantially, including personal details,
such as names, age and address of the people involved5 (cf. The Shetland News,
24 January, 2004).

Secrecy of Heroin Use and Supply
On balance, the interviews convey the impression that most island heroin users tend
to make considerable efforts to conceal their opiate use from uninvolved parts of the
island’s society in order to avoid social sanctions such as labelling and exclusion
[e.g. Oliver, O, 21, 7–12]. The interviewed users generally present the potential
impact of social stigmatisation as particularly strong on the island compared with
urban places. On the one hand, the often small size of user groups is held responsible,
as illustrated by the occasional user Oliver.
Oliver: […] Because it’s, they are all very small sor’ o’ communities, you know? People,
you know, keep quiet who use it, you know? [5, 10–12]

On the other hand, the island’s relatively conservative culture is also mentioned
in this context [e.g. Oliver, O, 22, 40–41].
Besides employers and the general public, many heroin users also conceal their
drug activity from family and non-using friends, although there are sometimes
exceptions in the case of trusted friends, relatives and partners in whom users can
confide [e.g. Christian, O, 10, 35–44; Oliver, 22, 34–23, 15]. The main criterion
for this appears to be the expectation of not being judged or treated differently as a
consequence. Social sanctions, however, do not seem to be the sole reason of heroin
consumers attempting to hide their opiate use. Some of the interviewees, in particular those consuming on a recreational, occasional basis, claim to conceal their use
from heavy, habitual junkie users. The underlying motivation may on one side be a

5

As stated by a Shetland journalist, a newspaper story about socially or legally transgressing
behaviour in Shetland only becomes interesting for locals to read when the persons involved are
identifiable (Stallwitz 2007). Since ‘everyone knows everyone’, having one’s name in the paper
means the whole of Shetland will be informed virtually immediately.

7.3 The Heroin Scene’s Social Network and Mentality: Subject to an Underlying…

187

control strategy to protect oneself from too deep an immersion into the heroin scene.
On the other side, people might want to avoid receiving attention in public by persons commonly known as heroin users, which could be regarded by onlookers as an
indicator of one’s own involvement with the drug.

Unaware Girlfriends
Several participants point out that they know of a considerable number of heroin
users who also conceal their opiate use from their partners, particularly if they inject.
Hannah (C) [8, 39–48] and Mona (C) [7, 40–42] declare that this type of concealment is not unusual. A number of other users, men and women equally, also share
this view [e.g. Rick, C, 10, 10–11]. Male users in particular reportedly hide their
heroin consumption from their girlfriends. Still, both Hannah and Mona claim to
be aware of female heroin consumers who conceal their use from their boyfriends.
Mona points out that although in most couples both partners use if either one does,
people living in the countryside are particularly cautious about concealing their
behaviour [7, 23–50]. Ben (N) provides a personal example of a male user carefully
hiding his heroin use from his girlfriend, who he believes would end the relationship
immediately if she found out [5, 28–29]. Hannah talks about four men she knows
directly who had tried to hide their opiate consumption from their girlfriends and
had eventually been found out by either their family or their partner. She also mentions men she only knows from distance [10, 42–11, 15]. She expresses concern
about the potential risk of spreading infectious diseases as a consequence of the
significant prevalence of male heroin users hiding their intravenous drug use from
their partners. She claims to have witnessed numerous men engaging in risky injecting behaviours such as sharing equipment, which promotes the spread of hepatitis C
and other serious blood-borne viruses. She argues that a person infected this way
could pass on the virus to their partner, and with Shetland’s small size, an epidemic
could escalate.
Hannah (C): An’ I know there’s a lo’ o’ guys up here tha’ are injectin’ heroin an’ their
girlfriends don’ know aboot it, an’ I’ve seen a lo o’ them bein’ thoughtless, like sharin’
wa’er, that kind thing, sharin’ spoons, an’ I think to myself, well, if even one of them has
somethin’ an’ they’re sharin’ wa’er or they’re sharin’ spoons an’ that passes on to the next
person an’ that person goes an’ sleeps with his girlfriend who doesn’ even realise that their
partner’s injectin’ heroin. That poor girl or that straight person could catch anythin’. An’
Shetland, if one person catches i’ could ESCALATE tae middle class people endin’ up like
wi’ sleepin’ wi’ someone an’ before you know, I think, there could be a real problem in
Shetland. If somebody’s go’ i’ then i’ could escalate so quickly before you know i’. A lo o’
people could have i’ an’ it’s a big worry I think. […] [8, 41–9, 3]

The perceived overrepresentation of men disguising their opiate use from their
partners might be associated with the reported predominance of male heroin users
explored above. Moreover, female users might act more cautiously and therefore
fare better at keeping their use a secret. Since men obviously play a more active and
present role within the subcultural network, they are liable to attract more attention

188

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

than women with their heroin use-related manners and behaviours. This may give
the impression that there are more secretive male than female users. In any case, the
atmosphere within the scene appears to be clearly male oriented or even
dominated.

Hypocrisy of Heroin Using Party Goers
When outlining the various effects the fear of stigmatisation has on the manners and
behaviours of heroin users, some interviewees describe a kind of ‘hypocrisy’ shown,
especially by occasional users in employment. The two long-term users Gerry (C)
and Lilly (N) provide explicit accounts of hypocritical attitudes. The former claims
to know of many partygoers who smoke heroin after a weekend of stimulant use as
a form of self-medication to calm down and relieve hangover symptoms. Instead of
admitting to their sporadic opiate use, Gerry explains that in public these people
often distance themselves from and deride regular users and emphatically deny ever
consuming something despicable as heroin. The motivation for such seemingly
paradoxical behaviour seems to be anxiety about incurring social sanctions if
discovered.
Gerry (C): I would say it has an’ it hasn’t. The ones tha’, I mean, there’s a lo’ o’ people tha’
use, not, no’ daily but maybe, ken, weekly or fortnightly when they go out for the weekend
kinna thing. An’ their use is a little bi’ about, as you say, ease the comedown. But other
kinda days they would go ‘Oh, I wouldn’t touch that if you paid me!’ kinna thing. ‘Fuckin’
smackheads!’ So it’s kinna, a bit of a strange thing. ‘I I was sittin’ smokin’ a bi’ two nights
ago, havin’ a tin foil, you know, in your house and now you seem to be [xxx]. So. yeah, it’s
a bit strange like that.
R: That’s strange, yeah. What what kinna thinking is behind that?
Gerry: I think, people don’t want to, don’t want to admit that that they use. They don’t want
to admit tha’ for work reasons or family reasons. They don’t want to kinna openly admit
that they use. I think. [5, 33–50]

Lilly describes her personal experience with a man who knew about her opiate
consumption and for that reason treated her with open contempt, even though he
himself engaged in occasional heroin use with some mutual friends. Like Gerry,
she explains his behaviour as an attempt to counteract potential suspicion by adopting a position of extreme disapproval. The accounts of Lilly and Gerry create the
impression that employed occasional users in particular define more serious heroin
users as an explicitly defined out-group. Perceived threat to employment and other
social relations seems to be the primary motivation for engaging in these deliberately
misleading behaviours.

Stigmatisation and Anticipated Costs as Treatment Barrier
As a further perceived threat to users’ privacy, numerous interviewees cite attendance of the Shetland drugs project. Several participants claim to avoid the aid

7.3 The Heroin Scene’s Social Network and Mentality: Subject to an Underlying…

189

organisation through worry of either being watched by someone when entering the
building or of meeting people inside who might spread the word that they have seen
them at the project [e.g. Ben, 15, 36–51; Philip, N, 6, 32–39]. This information,
they fear, may reach employers and other people. Therefore, many prefer to shun
the organisation, even though at times they feel they could have benefited from its
support or treatment. In addition to citing their own personal concerns, interviewees
over and over again mention people they know or know of who would benefit in one
way or another from the assistance and intervention the project offers [e.g. Joanna,
20, 44–50]. Others state that they do attend the project but only with great discomfort,
such as Joanna (C) cited below.
Joanna: […] As I say I’m a really private person an’ goin’ to yon project had just driven
me craaazy. [14, 37–38]

Hannah (C) assumes that in a more anonymous place than Shetland, she would
have sought help far earlier than she had. She states that she only went to the drugs
project when she already was in a seriously bad way [1, 16–26]. Although attending
the drugs project is not the only way to counteract a drugs problem, in many cases
it might contribute significantly to improving the psychological, physical and social
state of problematic drug users. Therefore, the intense stigmatisation of heroin,
together with the expectation by its users of adverse social effects if discovered,
appears to create a solid treatment barrier for many individuals. The fear of adverse
consequences seems to play an important role in determining people’s decision
making. While an actual risk of social sanctions most likely exists, reactions from
the social environment apparently range from absolute condemnation and rejection
to relative acceptance and tolerance. (The former might still be the most common
reaction amongst employers.) The widespread expectation of negative reactions and
social exclusion might fundamentally influence people’s reality constructions.
These again seemingly discourage many from utilising the drugs agency in order to
avoid the worst-case scenario of being revealed as a heroin user. Without the anticipated and actual risks, probably a greater number of Shetland drug users in need of
help would seek official support and treatment.

7.3.6.2

Supply Norms: Relaxedness, Patience and Softness

When contrasting the overall heroin scene mentality in Shetland with what participants generally describe as ‘representative urban mentalities’, a range of reported
differentiators have been presented and discussed. The long-time consumer Robin
(C), originating from a large British city, has already been cited in relation to his
own inappropriately ‘urban’ behaviour in his early time on the island when having
money owed to him: First he did not adapt to the local norms of waiting patiently
rather than reinforcing payment with the threat of violence. The typical island heroin
user, in turn, he regards as too soft to ‘survive’ the tough manners of a city heroin
subculture [8, 10–39]. The norms and behaviours associated with the business and
supply side of the island heroin subculture are portrayed in similar ways by other

190

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

interviewees, both mainlanders and islanders. Ben (N), Shetlander and temporarily
regular consumer, also contrasts the aggressive attitude often associated with heroin
trade in city areas with the patience and non-violent behaviour predominantly
encountered in Shetland. While city heroin dealers tend to react with physical brutality in order to reinforce outstanding payment, in Shetland a dealer would rather
apply verbal persuasion. If this fails, they may possibly go as far to give the debtor
a punch in the face [Ben, N, 19, 10; Christian, O, 13, 45]. Participants explain that
users repeatedly failing to clear their drug debts tend to be sanctioned with general
exclusion from drug supply rather than threat of violence. Ben declares that, due to
Shetland’s small size and the island’s typical cliquey kind of dealing, virtually every
dealer of whatever type of drug can be informed about unreliable users through
word of mouth. This way, someone who persistently owes money can be excluded
from the entire drug supply network. Furthermore, the Shetlander explains, violence
is not necessary because most people will pay their debts when in the position to.
Mainlanders who use violence to recover debts would simply not be accepted by the
Shetland drug using community. Ben emphasises the overall trust between the
islanders as crucial brake against the development of violent criminal behaviours.
Ben (N): […] On the mainland as well, if you owe somebody money, it can be as little as
five pounds, 100 pounds, um, you’re gonna get stabbed, slashed or hurt. 1) ‘cos you owe the
money an’ 2) don’ ever do wait with the money again!. In Shetland people, um, will ask you
an’ ask you an’ ask you for the money “When you’re gonna ge’ it? Come on!” ken? An’,
ah, you might ge’ a punch in the face - maybe, very rarely anybody does anythin’ to anybody tha’ owes money. Other than that they tell everybody “Don’t give him any drugs. He
doesn’ ge’ any dope, he doesn’ ge’ any speed, he owes me money.” An’ there might be
20/30 dealers in Shetland of various different drugs an’ everybody will know “Don’ speak
to him, don’ sell to him. He’s a grasser, he owes money.” It’s a really close cliquey type
dealin’ to people. [laughs a bit]
R: Uumm, there’s no need for it - can you describe that a bit more?
Ben: Yeah, there’s no need for violence?
R: Yeah, yeah.
Ben: Yeah. People come from the mainland and they might threaten people an’ say “Aye,
he owes money - stabbed! Cut wi’ a knife.” Bu’ somebody who comes up fae the mainland
an’ cuts somebody severely wi’ their knife, stabs them an’ puts them in hospital - they go’a
ge’ off this island. An’ he can only go on one boat, if you gonna go on the boat an’ if they’re
lookin’ for somebody they’ll have somebody in the airport an’ will be watchin’ ou’ for
these people. So you can’t do really bad violence an’ ge’ away with it. Plus there’s all like
a lo’ o’ friends, people I know, you dinnae, you dinnae need violence. You don’t need violence. There’s no need for it’. Somebody owes you 100 pounds, they’re gonna give you
when they’ve go’ the money. You don’t need somebody go an’ steal i’. Or break intae somebody’s house to pay for the drugs. That just doesn’ happen. People in Shetland leave their
doors open, ken, you just walk into their house, leave their cars open. There’s a lo’ o’ trust
in Shetland. [19, 6–7, 7]

On the basis of the interview accounts, it seems that the supply norms and behaviours
common in Shetland are determined more by the dealer than the user. Presumably,
consumers tend to rely on suppliers and so might be more likely to conform to the
model dictated by the suppliers than vice versa. However, due to the small size of
the island, the dealing attitudes and behaviours may to a decisive degree be subject
to the acceptance of the general drug using community, and users specifically.

7.3 The Heroin Scene’s Social Network and Mentality: Subject to an Underlying…

191

Hence, dealer and user manners probably influence each other and both are likely to
be influenced by the mainstream culture in which the heroin using subculture is
embedded.

7.3.6.3

Norms and Rules of the Old School

The preceding sections have shown that the heroin using mentality in Shetland,
including associated norms and behaviours, is by and large perceived as significantly
more peaceful and trust-oriented than a typical urban heroin scene. Interview
accounts in this regard almost seem to create a universal rule. In this respect, the
values and behavioural norms and rules of the above-introduced heroin using old
school have repeatedly been mentioned. The four male long-term users in their mid30s Gordon, (C), Gerry, (C), Duncan, (C), and Rick (C), who refer either literally
or indirectly to themselves as being part of the old school, resemble each other not
only in their patterns of heroin consumption, but also in their heroin using socialisation.
In the following, the concept of old school and its meaning for the island heroin
subculture will be elucidated and analysed.
Robin (C) also characterises himself as old school without belonging to the
above-described circle. For him, old school means never introducing anyone, especially a young person, to any kind of drug. Moreover, he maintains that if caught
with drugs he would never ‘grass on’ someone in order to rescue his own neck. The
motivation underlying these two behavioural norms he explains with his personal
value system: Behaviours such as introducing youngsters to drugs or informing on
other users do not agree with his moral convictions and thereby his self-image. He
explains that if he were to act against his ethical code, he would be sanctioned by
his own conscience with extreme feelings of remorse and regret.
Robin (C): […] I’m wha’ would be called ‘old school’. I don’ believe in introducin’ people
to drugs of any kind. Whether tha’ would be cannabis or speed or smack. I do not believe in
introducin’ anybody to drugs. […] It’s just, it’s wha’ I can live wi’. You know? I couldnae
live wi’ myself, I couldnae put heid on the pillow at night knowin’ that because I’d been
caught for somethin’ an’ rather than just take the punishment for i’ I would go an’ gie somebody else up. I just, I just couldnae dae i’, I couldnae dae i’. Aah, so, that’s wha’ I mean wi’
old school’, you know?

Gordon (C) and Duncan (C) describe very similar sets of norms and rules they
follow relatively consistently. Gordon, for example, affirms that he refuses to assist
others with injecting if he is not sure that the person has injected before. Furthermore,
he would avoid using heroin in front of a person younger than mid-20s. He claims
his underlying motivation to be the fact that he feels comfortable with a routine.
Rather than having to decide in each situation how to act, he prefers to have an
established set of norms and rules he can customarily resort to [12, 18–28].
When asked how far he sees the old school ethos ingrained in the Shetland heroin
culture, Robin claims that native Shetlanders generally do not act according to the
ethical code he follows. With respect to ‘grassing up’ other people, he has already
been cited above as arguing that due to the placid, communal, and non-violent

192

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

character of Shetlanders, the islanders do not fear the brutal sanctions typical in the
urban scene. Hence, Shetlanders in comparison to mainlanders are less afraid of
negative consequences and thus rather ‘dare’ to inform on other users [7, 7–34].
Moreover, he claims to have witnessed the widespread readiness of even older
Shetland-born heroin users to introduce youngsters to drugs, including heroin. In
his opinion, Shetlanders tend to be more interested in potential financial profit than
in acting responsibly towards the young [9, 6–22 and 37–43].
Gerry (C) contradicts Robin with his account of the islands’ second last main
dealer, Peter.6 In Gerry’s account, the Shetland-born man dealt until roughly two
and a half years ago and acted according to a strict and coherent system of behavioural rules apparently comparable to the systems provided by Robin, Gordon, and
Duncan, respectively. Gerry provides an example of the supply structure of dealers
and distributors, with Peter, as head dealer, refusing to supply heroin to young
people.
Gerry (C): […] It’s just been, yeah, with Peter, he kinda, he kinda tried to keep a bi’ of a
lid on it. Keep it contained. The minimum kinda, tryin’ to keep kinda, everybody, who was
dealin’ for him knew kinda his se’ a’ rules kinda, no’ any of them, no’, not, it was kinda,
‘Don’t deal to school kids’, it was kinda ‘Not teenagers’, no anybody, again it was ‘Heroin
goes round. Do it the old school’ kinna thing. - Yeah, old school, that’s - Keep it to the old
school kinda thing. So it was kinna like that. [3, 3–11]

Gerry’s explanation demonstrates that the old school rules also seem to extend
to Shetlanders, or certain Shetlanders, as well as mainlanders, contradicting Robin’s
view. Still, it might be possible that these norms and rules were originally imported
and introduced by heroin users who moved up from urban Britain.
The Shetland woman Cathy (C) offers a personal example of a young person
who persistently tried to get access to heroin for many years but did not succeed due
to the barrier of the old school ethical code. She claims that until about 7 years ago,
the core heroin scene was restricted to about ten users, of whom she only knew
Gordon personally. However, in order to protect her from the potentially destructive
effects of opiate use, he refused her access and also instructed other people to do
the same. She explains it was only through persistence that she eventually managed
to purchase the drug [1, 22–32]. Her final success might also be associated with the
growth and spread of the heroin scene over the past years.
A further practice amongst the old school, as described by interviewees, is that
of restricting the amounts supplied. Rather than aiming to gain financial profits with
the sale of large quantities of heroin, the old school merely seek to provide their own
group. As a safeguard against the development of extreme addiction, both the quantity
and frequency of supply is limited.
As already mentioned, the old school value system probably originates from
urban Britain and has subsequently been imported to the Shetland Islands. In the
view of the various interview accounts, the earliest heroin users on the islands were
oil workers, hippies, and drop-outs from British cities. These users might have been

6

Name changed.

7.3 The Heroin Scene’s Social Network and Mentality: Subject to an Underlying…

193

the first to act and live corresponding to these values. The mention of the Shetland
dealer Peter, who apparently supplied the majority of the island’s heroin using
community, seems to demonstrate that this system has been adopted and continued
by Shetlanders. However, on the basis of Robin’s statements, one might conclude
that the island’s heroin using community consists of various factions, of which some
act in a way consistent with the old school and others do not. The behaviour of the
latter might be determined by commercial or opportunistic values. Moreover,
throughout part II, interview extracts have shown that the Shetland heroin scene has
grown in recent years to include a greater diversity of users. Virtually all interviewees speaking about the changes in the scene agree that heroin has only recently
become available to people younger than their mid-20s. The logical explanation
would be that youngsters were previously denied access, with most Shetland heroin
users complying with the rule ‘no heroin to young people’. Robin’s perspective
might be formed by his observing that some islanders ‘break this rule’ while the
urban incomers he knows have adhered to it.

7.3.7

Summary of the Heroin Scene Mentality

Recapitulating the essential characteristics of the heroin scene’s mentality, which in
many ways seems to reflect Shetland’s insular mentality, one particular feature
stands out: Community-mindedness appears to constitute a very central category in
this context, around which other mentality concepts, such as cliqueyness, are
grouped and organised. The widespread community-minded spirit seems closely
related to the socio-geographic properties of the Shetland Islands; due to its small
size and spatial isolation, its inhabitants tend to form a very close-knit social
network with virtually everyone knowing each other and each other’s business.
People treat each other with attentiveness, care and trust, and this seems to extend
to certain sections of the heavy and habitual heroin using population. Yet this behavioural attitude has not been presented as all-embracing, but rather restricted in its targets. Interviewees have repeatedly claimed that Shetlanders tend to build cliques.
Individuals and cliques belonging to particular social circles of the heroin scene are
perceived as an in-group and thus are usually met with a caring attitude. Those seen
as out-group, such as people who have moved to Shetland from the British mainland, might experience the opposite – a conscious and obvious exclusion. The motivation underlying the exclusion of mainlanders appears to be an anxiety of Shetland’s
cultural inheritance being threatened. There seems to be a commonly shared fear
that people from outside the island could undermine its mentality, including essential
ethical norms and behavioural rules. Hence, according to interview accounts,
so-called Soothmoothers may experience greater disadvantages and difficulties than
islanders in purchasing certain drugs, especially heroin, and in generally being
accepted in the heroin using community. This Soothmoother prejudice may be
intensified by the influx of originally heavily injecting urban users. This group has
indeed been described as showing a propensity for drug-related crime before

194

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

moving to Shetland, thereby fuelling both fear and prejudice. Still, by and large,
participants who have moved up to Shetland from urban Britain claim to have
generally adapted to the island’s ethical and behavioural codes in order to gain
access to the heroin using community. Out-group biases have also been described
as being held against individuals or groups with ‘different’ or ‘deviant’ natures,
such as against injectors in a circle of smokers.
The reverse side of community-mindedness seems to entail potentially
adverse consequences for people known to use heroin. Therefore, to be discovered as a user has been cited as one of the worst possible outcomes, since under
these circumstances an individual may face exclusion from the job market and
the community. Through fear of such social sanctions, the majority of interviewed users purportedly maintain stringent secrecy regarding their dealings
with the opiate. As a result, a significant number of users may avoid attending
the local drugs project, informing their partner about their habit or try to convey
the impression in public of profound opposition to heroin. Thus, as has been
outlined above, attempts at secrecy appear not only to have a controlling effect on
the overall heroin subculture, but to simultaneously encourage certain risk
behaviours and treatment barriers.
As also related to the island’s community-minded spirit, users have discussed the
relatively ‘soft’ manners within the local drug scene. Rather than enforcing debt
repayment with brutality or violent threats, Shetlanders are presented as being generally patient and forbearing. To these manners, mainland users apparently and
largely adapt in order to avoid being sanctioned with rejection and exclusion.
Nonetheless, Shetlanders seem to be ready to hold incomers responsible for many
undesirable social phenomena and changes taking place on the islands. However, a
number of concrete counterexamples have also been provided. Several of the mainlanders in their mid-30s seem to have belonged to an urban generation adhering to
a relatively strict value system referred to as old school. Inherent to this ethical code
is, for example, the duty to protect young and inexperienced persons from contact
with both heroin and injecting. While these ethical standards reportedly constitute
the behavioural guidelines for large parts of the heroin scene, some groups have
been presented as prioritising commercial values.
In the relatively recent past, these commercial values apparently have increased
in significance. Besides, a countertrend of what could be denominated as junkie
tendencies seemingly has begun to exert a noticeable influence on the scene. Such
tendencies include egoism, dishonesty, a preparedness to inform on – grass on –
other users and engagement in criminal activities within certain factions of the
Shetland heroin subculture. However, the precise manifestations of this new trend
apparently strongly depend on the local sociocultural and geographic conditions.
These connections will be illuminated and analysed further in the fifth and subsequent
chapter of part II about the historical perspective of the Shetland heroin scene,
including the five different phases that could be identified.
The structural particularities of the Shetland heroin scene on a macro- and a
micro-social level before incisive commercialisation processes started to become
noticeable are illustrated in Fig. 7.1 below. The ‘macro-social level’ refers to the

7.4

Changes of the Heroin Scene’s Appearance and Internal Organisation

195

Fig. 7.1 Structural model of the heroin scene before commercialisation

geographic, cultural and socio-economic conditions surrounding the subculture and
the ‘micro-social level’ to the conditions within the subculture. The global and
national drug trend is illustrated as superimposed on the macro- and micro-social
particularities.
Throughout the last three sections, numerous interview extracts indicating that
the heroin scene in Shetland is subject to previous and ongoing changes have been
cited. Through the examination of these citations, the procedural aspects of the
subculture’s social fabric have become evident.

7.4

7.4.1

Changes of the Heroin Scene’s Appearance
and Internal Organisation
Spread and Growth of the Scene

Virtually every interviewed heroin user agreed that the island’s heroin scene has
changed considerably over the last, approximately, 5 years. These transformations
include a large overall increase in the number and the diversity of users. Different
interviewees have called this development an ‘explosion of the scene’. Whereas
users were once predominantly male and older than 30, the number of women,
young people and ‘average’ Shetlanders are claimed to have risen strikingly.

196

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

Declarations such as, ‘I would never have thought that such and such would ever
start using this drug!’ repeatedly occur throughout the interviews. Moreover, interviewees maintain that the number of dependent, problematic consumers as well as
clients of the Shetland drugs project have grown notably. Interviewees claim that at
the same time, the scene now also includes more occasional, recreational heroin
users than in the past, since to a certain extent a shift from the use of party drugs
to heroin seems to have taken place. Hence, the ratio between occasionally and
dependently using people might not have changed fundamentally.

7.4.1.1

Reasons for the Spread and Growth

Both as a result of and a reason for the increase of heroin use, various participants
mention an overall decrease in the social stigma attached by the general Shetland
community to the opiate and consequently the drugs project: With a reduced risk of
severe social sanctions, more people venture to use the controversial drug. One
interviewee, however, claims that the stigma has grown since the community has
become more aware of the existence of heroin in Shetland through newspaper
coverage. As a consequence, the person asserts that the stigma of drug use has worsened, which is evident in greater levels of labelling by the community and
self-labelling by those affected. Some interviews suggest that the stigma is lifting
with the increase in younger users. The intensified attention on heroin use in
Shetland by the local media might have inflamed the fears and concerns of
specifically older residents who have little knowledge about illegal drug use.

7.4.2

Increase in Intravenous Drug Use

Virtually all interviewees agree that the increase in heroin use in Shetland is accompanied by an increase in the proportion of intravenous users. Also, in this respect,
the term explosion is frequently employed. A number of participants explain that in
the past, this route of administration was particularly typical of incomers from the
mainland. The overall majority of users would have smoked or, to a lesser degree,
snorted the opiate. Now, the proportion of mainlanders and islanders who inject
could be about the same. Interviewees claim that, whereas intravenous use was once
practised with responsibility, the increase in young users has led to a decline in these
standards. The significant spread of injecting has additionally been cited in relation to
amphetamine consumption. Many people for whom speed is the main drug of choice
as well as heroin users in times of heroin drought are said to use the amphetamine in
the first place intravenously.
With regard to both the general expansion of heroin use and injecting, numerous
interviewees compare the situation on the island to the happenings in urban Britain
10 or 15 years earlier, and point out parallels and similarities.

7.4

Changes of the Heroin Scene’s Appearance and Internal Organisation

7.4.2.1

197

Reasons for the Increase of Intravenous Drug Use

Concerning the spread of intravenous drug, and in particular heroin use, an array of
causal associations has been suggested. Various participants claim that habitual
users in particular often advance to injecting due to the generally low quality and
thus potency of the heroin obtainable in Shetland. Furthermore, many older users
explain that the old school principle of not introducing heroin and intravenous
administration to youngsters and novices, described in the previous section, is
gradually losing influence. According to several participants, these norms are being
replaced by the perception of injecting as more cost effective and ‘cool’.

7.4.3

Transitions in the Overall Scene Mentality

Besides an overall growth and spread of the Shetland heroin scene, including rising
injection and addiction rates, interviewees also claim to have noticed substantial
changes within the subculture’s general mentality. While previously a tenor of community orientation and comradeship appears to have been predominant, numerous
interview citations point to a recent expansion of what could be called a junkie attitude.
This term, derived from participants’ accounts, relates to self-centredness and
readiness to take advantage of other people, including fellow users. Certain people
might even be prepared to engage in deceptive, criminal or violent behaviours.
As asserted by an occasional user, the island’s heroin scene has entered a transition
from social to ‘more and more sordid’ [Christian, 10, 32]. While beforehand caring
for each other was generally assigned a high priority, these community-based values
have started to lose ground. The new egocentric trend seems closely related to an
overall commercialisation of heroin as merchandise. At the same time, the formerly
strict control of heroin supply and using behaviours seems to have experienced a
relativisation. Users on balance are described as handling their heroin use not only
less secretively, but also in a less controlled and conscious way. This leads, amongst
other things, to risky behaviours and even deaths.

7.4.3.1

Reasons for the Mentality and Overall Transitions Within the Scene

Interviewees associate a number of diverse features with the relatively recent
changes in attitude perceivable within the Shetland heroin scene. Many see a relationship between these changes and the growing influx of heavy urban heroin users.
Others mention the ‘prison connection’ as fundamentally involved in the decline of
community-minded values and behavioural rules. Prison connection refers to the
rising incarceration rate of heroin dealing Shetlanders, a consequence of the growing scene. In prison, Shetland suppliers are exposed to an environment where they
can potentially professionalise their skills in dealing and related criminal activities.
In this context, some users even regard the growing police activity to be primarily

198

7

The Internal Structure of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

responsible for the criminal and violent tendencies becoming noticeable within the
subculture. The described transitions allude to the global British drug use trend
beginning to exert a perceivable impact on the island’s drug scene, with a delay of
between 10 and 15 years. Comparisons between the development of the subculture
in Shetland and the urban British mainland in the late 1980s are frequently drawn,
and parallels identified. All in all, diverse participants judge the past and current
changes to be symptomatic of a general commercialisation.
This section has supplied a brief summary of the possible associations between
the altered and altering features of Shetland drug use as presented by the interviewees. The purpose is to provide an introductory overview of the historical perspective of the scene and its five different stages, with all their characteristic features and
peculiarities. The identification of five distinct phases is achieved through a reconstruction and reorganisation of the interview material relevant to this topic, conducted from the reflexive but still subjective perspective of the author. Hence, the
existence of five differentiable stages constitutes one but not the only possible perception of the island heroin scene. Looked at from other angles, the subculture
might be perceived as having experienced a greater or smaller number of separate
eras. However, this specific conceptualisation is based on a consistent and in-depth
analysis and interpretation of the complex coherences concerning the heroin subculture
and its historical course.
In the following chapter, the specific features and characteristics of each subcultural stage as well as their respective transitional phases before entering the subsequent stage will be described and analytically illuminated. Regarding the last and
current phase, future prognoses will be presented and scrutinised.

References
Adler, A. (1973). Der Sinn des Lebens. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhkramp. (Original: 1933).
McEvoy, M., & Daniluk, J. (1995). Wounds to the soul: The experiences of aboriginal women
survivors of sexual abuse. Canadian Psychology, 36(3), 221–235.
Stallwitz, A. (2007). Heroin use in Shetland from the perspective of different local professionals.
Therapeutic Communities, 28(3), 256–272.
Wills, J. (1991). A place in the sun: Shetland and oil. Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing
Company.

Chapter 8

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical
Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

8.1

Introduction

The five different eras of the heroin scene – chronologically named – are here
referred to as the EARLY DAYS, the ERA OF THE OLD SCHOOL, the CONTAINED
COMMERCIALISATION, the COMMERCIAL PEAK and the CURRENT
FRAGMENTATION. Many interviewees seem to further differentiate between the
principally ‘good old’ and ‘bad new times’. The turning point between good and bad,
participants describe to have occurred around the commercial peak. It seems many
interviewees share the perception that before the commercial peak, the conditions
concerning the heroin scene were ‘good’, and afterwards ‘bad’. A black-and-white
judgement of this kind might not solely be based on reason but also irrational,
emotional factors. The circumstances of the commercial peak and the transitional
phase beforehand will be systematically analysed at a later stage of this chapter.
In Chap. 2, the features of the Shetland heroin have been presented, while Chap. 3
concentrated on the subculture’s internal structure and organisation. These two
tightly interlaced topics have for simplifying, structuring reasons been divided
artificially. Both comprise numerous interwoven themes and would be too complex
and thus confusing for the reader to follow if not didactically structured and
simplified. The purpose of this chapter is to explore the island’s heroin scene from
a historical perspective, with a particular focus on triggers, processes and outcomes
of change. The aim is to describe central aspects and features characterising
each phase and differentiating it from the preceding and the subsequent phases,
rather than to provide detailed and all-encompassing images of the scene in its
respective stages. Consequently, an artificial subdivision into descriptive features
and internal structure as in Chaps. 2 and 3 is neither necessary nor adequate in
this chapter.
The representations of the different phases cannot be equal regarding elaborateness
and precision but depend on the specific features interviewees regard as important
and noteworthy. Moreover, the time factor has to be considered. Only two or three

A. Stallwitz, The Role of Community-Mindedness in the Self-Regulation of Drug
Cultures: A Case Study from the Shetland Islands, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3861-4_8,
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

199

200

8

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

participants have personally experienced the very beginnings of the subculture, and
thus only they are in the position to provide first-hand information about the initial
stage based on own experiences. Also, the earliest events occurred longest ago,
which increases the influence of both failing memory and events passing into
legend through frequent retelling. It can be assumed that accounts are distorted
most that date back to times longest ago. While these considerations should be
borne in mind when reading relevant interview passages, however, this does not
imply that all accounts of the old times are generally flawed but rather to some
extent altered.

8.2
8.2.1

The Early Days: Hippies and Oil Workers
Cultural Conditions at the Beginnings
of the Shetland Heroin Scene

When sketching the features of Shetland’s common substance using scene in Part II,
Sect. 1.2 has been emphasised what a significant role the construction of the Sullom
Voe oil terminal between the mid-1970s and the early 1980s played for the development of the local drug scene. Besides a great influx of oil workers from urban
Britain, interviewees describe how members of the hippie culture and other countercultural currents of that time moved to Shetland as social dropouts seeking forms
of life beyond the British mainstream. According to participant accounts, it was
primarily people from such backgrounds that ‘imported’ both drugs and aspects of
urban drug scenes to the islands, and in this way contributed fundamentally to
establishing the origins of the local drug culture. Oil workers typically had large
incomes at their disposal, and many of them reportedly bought illegal psychoactive
drugs in order to compensate for the hard work, the bleakness of the island and the
lack of leisure time facilities. Various interviewees’ citations describe the extraordinarily exclusive, small, and C in these former times, which was accessible only to a
carefully restricted number of select people [e.g. Duncan, N, 4, 29–5, 11; Rick, 10,
38–11, 8; Kay, 6, 34–35]. Duncan (N), who originates from urban Britain but has
lived in Shetland since the heroin scene’s early years, suggests that the subculture’s
beginnings were closely associated with the oil terminal’s start of operation. This
view has already been given in the preceding section and will here be taken up
again. According to Duncan’s descriptions, the original heroin users – also referred
to as the original crew – comprised mature townspeople, socialised and living
according to unconventional, alternative or even countercultural worldviews rooted
in the 1960s and 1970s.
Duncan (N): Oh yeah, people, there’s people up here tha’ always kept i’ tha’ way. There
was like a, I remember a long time ago the only heroin scene, if you could possibly call tha’,
was people tha’ were older than me, much older than you an’, aaaah, all the rest of i’, kinna
came ou’ the 60s an’ 70s. They all came up here when there was an awful lo’ o’ money for
the oil an’ all tha’. [4, 32–38]

8.2

The Early Days: Hippies and Oil Workers

201

A similar picture is given by the Shetlander Rick (C), roughly the same age as
Duncan. He estimates that the first heroin use on the island took place in 1976, and
was carried out by men working at Sullom Voe. According to his account, these
people restrained their use to very small amounts inhaled infrequently. This style
of use principally enabled these early users to avoid adverse physical or social
experiences, including physical or psychological dependence.
Rick (C): […] An’ there was nae opiate use here at all. The opiate use there was, was guys
tha’ worked. At Sullom in 1976, ken, older guys tha’ got the odd little bit up an’ didnae get
problems wi’ it, ken, just kept i’ doon to a minimal. An’, um, bu’ now, yeah, it’s jus’ gotten
completely the other way. [5, 47–50]

The Shetlander Oliver (O), in his late 40s, claims to have first experimented with
heroin in Shetland in the late 1970s, and to have thus witnessed the very beginnings
of the subculture. He explains that within the context of the general explosion of the
local drug scene, initiated by the massive influx of thousands of oil workers at
Sullom Voe, drugs like heroin became available to an extremely restricted and controlled degree and at a high price. He also states that the very first people to supply
heroin on the islands were people employed at the oil terminal, originating from
urban England [3, 1–6].
Kay (O), in her mid-40s, claims to have begun using heroin in the early 1980s in
Shetland – thus a few years later than Oliver – and to have used for somewhat more
than 20 years. Consequently, she also has a rich store of observations about the
origins and developments of the island heroin subculture. As mentioned above,
many of the older participants agree that the Shetland heroin scene was established
predominantly by two groups of incomers: Employees at Sullom Voe and hippies.
While Oliver offers in-depth reflections on the former group, Kay gives detailed
accounts of the latter of which she seems to have belonged to. Her examples partly
refer to the scene in general and partly to her personal user circle, with whom she
used heroin for about 20 years. This group, primarily comprising academics whom
she designates ‘old hippies’, started using together in the early 1980s. Members
were generally aged between 30 and 50 years, with her only in her early 20s being
by far the youngest. According to Kay, the use of heroin was regarded as a treat
enjoyed solely on specific occasions, no more than a few times a year, in a style that
always reliably prevented the onset of addiction [2, 1–10; 6, 6–18].

8.2.2

A Civilised Friendly Social Scene of Responsible
Older Users

Oliver explains that the use of heroin had then been a very rare phenomenon
conducted by a stringently limited number of people. Suppliers strictly regulated
and constrained the amount of heroin available in Shetland to an average of about
a gram per month. He depicts the heroin scene of this time as characterised by a
friendly and social rather than cynical and commercial atmosphere. He seems to

202

8

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

argue that the purpose of suppliers and users was communally shared experience
rather than individual profit in money or drugs.
Oliver (O): […] Well, when I first took it, I was doin’ it in 1979, or first experiment with it…
it was very very few people doin’ it, very few. And, ah, even like the, ah, the distribution was
controlled, like, ah, there was… You could maybe only buy, it was really only a gram a month
or quarter a gram a week or somethin’ like tha’, you know. They just wouldn’t sell anymore
as tha’, you know, because, ah, the It was really just a sorta, em, a friendly social thing rather
than sor’ o’ cynical dealers tryin’ to get as many people hooked [dependent] to make as
much money. I’ wasn’t like that, you know. Bu’ tha’s a long time ago now. [5, 28–38]

The heroin subculture of the old days has frequently been presented fondly,
particularly by older users who themselves have participated since the scene’s
beginning or know people who have. The features of the scene and its members are
typically characterised with attributes like small, not noticeable, exclusive, civilised,
and controlled and older, responsible and mature, respectively. Patterns of chaotic
and risky intravenous use are never associated with this period, which appears to
have lasted roughly from the late 1970s until the late 1980s/early 1990s.
Below, Duncan (N) names essential features of heroin use and purchase in the
old scene. He gives a first-hand account as an associate or even member of this early
user circle. He presents the scene as shaped by its users’ responsible ways of
handling the opiate. His definition of responsible in this context includes moderation
in consumption and careful concealment of all activities related to heroin supply
and use. According to his report, everybody in this circle was aware of the dangers
associated with failing to use and supply heroin in a responsible style. Duncan
explains that consequently every user and dealer respected the behavioural regulations
needed to manage the risk of losing control over the subculture that had been built
around the highly illegal and stigmatised drug. Hence, the supply of heroin had to
be extremely restricted in amount, frequency and recipients. Like Oliver (O),
Duncan emphasises the non-commercial, conscious and social attitude determining
the atmosphere of the early heroin scene.
Duncan (N): […] I’ used to be so small, i’ used to be among a group in Lerwick I was sittin’
with, that, I would say, was very responsible about it. They would never ever, you know, one of
these things, it never got mentioned, you know I mean, never go’ bowled abou’? You know,
an’ everybody knew wha’ the consequences of bowlin’ abou’ would be. An’ everybody
knew wha’ the consequences of large amounts bein’ brought to the island and givin’ out to
everybody would be. You know? There was never ever anythin’ like free heroin to ge’ you
into an’ all tha’. You know? It’s jus’, you know, it’s unbelievable, I mean [1, 15–25]

The heroin user Kay (O) points out that this civilised way of life that in former
times characterised the island heroin scene is no longer perceptible [2, 21–23].

8.2.3

Using Heroin in Shetland in the 1980s: ‘Same
as Having a Drink or a Joint’

The occasional user Oliver represents the oldest of the interviewed users. With his
first experiences of heroin consumption dating back 25 years, he also looks back
on the longest heroin using career on the island. Even though this period includes

8.2

The Early Days: Hippies and Oil Workers

203

several years when he did not use at all, he always seems to have managed to maintain
a relatively comprehensive and far-reaching overview of the features, constitution
and transitions of the subculture. Comparing the past and present, he emphasises the
categorical differences in the scene’s relationship with the Shetland community.
From his account, it seems the subculture exerted a barely noticeable influence
on Shetland’s society for approximately 20 years. Throughout this time, he claims
to have perceived the general atmosphere and tenor of the subculture and patterns
of use overall as recreational and social: By and large, heroin use was ritualistically and mutually shared. He describes the consumption of heroin during this
era as comparable in its unproblematic nature to the use of substances generally
regarded as socially integrated, such as alcohol and cannabis. Like various other
users, he emphasises the strict control, due to which the scene could preserve
its social, unproblematic and unobtrusive quality. Like other interviewees, he
defines this control as a carefully limited and expensive supply to a small number of
selected people. The measures sold usually amounted to not more than individual
snorting lines.
Oliver (O): […] And for a long long time, before, ah, well, before it got a real grip on
society up here, on Ler-, all over Shetland, but primarily in Lerwick, I suppose, ah… it was
just a recreational, it was just a, a social thing, you know? Same as havin’ a drink or, ah, or
people passin’ joints around or wha’ever, you know? To a very small sorta,… […] just a
small group o’ people, I suppose. This is, this is like maybe… 1980. Nearly 25 years ago.
I I I first, ah, tried heroin then - ‘79/’80, somethin’ like that. Yeah, me an’ my then girlfriend,
ya… Just, purely out o’ interest. It was real, also it was very difficult to come by up here.
Then. Almost impossible, really impossible. It was very controlled. It was no, ah, like the
people who were sellin’ it that were people from, ah, from Liverpool. Funny enough [laughs
a bit]. Who were up here workin’ at Sullom Voe, you know? There were a lot o’ workers at
Sullom Voe. 1000s or 100s of people came up here to work. So, the the drug scene just…
exploded, you now. At, well, well, that time’78,’79,’80, things like that. And, ah, it became
available unbelievably expensive – a hundred pound a gram then, 1980! You know?
It’s a lo’ o’ money. Aah,… and you could buy it by the line, just for sniffin’, snortin’. […]
[2, 40–3, 10]

He contrasts this long period with the current state of the scene: At some point in
the fairly recent past, the scene ‘got a real grip on society up here’. The expression
implies a significant transformation, after which the social and societal consequence
of heavy heroin use became evident.

8.2.4

Ideational Heroin Use Within the Framework
of Small, Select and Secretive Groups

The occasional user Kay offers numerous detailed accounts of the Shetland heroin
scene in its early days. As Oliver (O) and Duncan (N), she describes the subculture
20 years ago as having formed small select undercover groups that acted very
secretively and carefully. Heroin was normally only available on specific occasions,
such as midsummer or Christmas. It was regarded as a treat to celebrate these
special events a few times a year for one night at a time or at most two successive
nights. [2, 1–10; 6, 6–18].

204

8

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

Through restrictions of this kind – low frequency and the association with
celebrated events – both the scene and individual using patterns were controlled
[1, 5–14]. This form of risk management could reliably prevent the development of
physical or psychological dependence. Furthermore, a potential superelevation of
the drug’s meaning in proportion to other important areas of life of a user could thus
be counteracted [12, 28]. Heroin was intended to be a highly valued and distinguished
product that was enjoyed primarily in order to underline the extraordinary nature of
special social gatherings.
In Sect. 3.1, when introducing the faction of occasional users, Kay’s personal user
group of people with predominantly academic backgrounds and hippie worldviews
has already been presented in order to exemplify recreational users. Apparently, this
group has existed for more than 20 years without undergoing any substantial changes
in typical patterns, frequency or meanings of heroin use. With respect to these
descriptions – as well as to the very similar account given by Oliver, whose user circle
seems to resemble Kay’s in many essential features – the attribute ideational had
previously been employed to characterise the nature of the heroin use. While Oliver
affirms that his circle still exists and that he still takes part in it, Kay claims to have
left the group a few years ago and to be unsure whether it persists or not. According
to Oliver’s and Kay’s reports concerning their respective user circles, the drug and
its use have always carried a shared ideational meaning and held a ritualistic status
with strong group bonding effects. While the ritualistically celebrated use of heroin
appears to constitute a defining feature – the ‘glue’ or ‘catalyst’, as designated by Kay
below – both groups are also depicted as sharing an array of other significant interests
as well as a powerful system of norms and values, already indicated in Sect. 3.1.
The female interviewee speaks appreciatively about the friendly, respectful and
relaxed atmosphere in which she and her fellow users consumed heroin. They would
not only share the drug but also nice food, conversations and music, with the use of
heroin seeming to constitute the highlight of such culturally sophisticated events.
Kay: Always the same, same relaxed scene. Maybe have some snacks, we would listen to
music, we would talk, stay up all nigh’. Everythin’ was very mellow an’ peaceful… An’ i’
was, i’ was lovely. An’ I don’t think, lookin’ back,… it wasn’t only the heroin. It was the
whole scene. Bu’ I suppose… I suppose it was the heroin that kept us altogether. The heroin
was the glue. That was the catalyst. […] [9, 13–15]

The commonly shared superordinate idea and worldview exhibited on these
occasions, Kay describes as the hippie philosophy of ‘love and peace’ [12, 22].
Expressions she uses, such as ‘Santa Claus project’ and ‘Christmas magic for adults’,
further underline the ideational foundation of the communal undertaking [6, 21–36].

8.2.5

The Golden Light of the Good Old Days

Heroin appears to have generally been a highly cherished good, consumption of
which often took place in a celebrated, ritualistic manner. While this tenor emerges
very strongly from those interviews containing reflections on this period, it should
be considered – as has previously been pointed out – that the informative value of

8.2

The Early Days: Hippies and Oil Workers

205

the corresponding citations will always be tainted by subjective experiences and
knowledge. Furthermore, the frequent comparison of past with present appears to
be accompanied by an agreement commonly shared by interviewees that these
former times were principally better. Hence, the old days will partly be somewhat
glamorised. This assumption is not intended to imply that illustrations of this
era should be dismissed. Rather, the probability of a glamorising accent should be
borne in mind when reading reflections about the past, especially in comparison to
the currently changing present.

8.2.6

Conditions of Change: A Second Generation Taking Over

When speaking about the good old days of the Shetland heroin scene, interviewees
tend primarily to refer to the first two phases of the scene, and sometimes the third
one. The scene taken as a whole appears to have sustained its generally harmless,
socially unobtrusive nature for many years. Central features of this nature include
the small size, the exclusiveness, the involvement of primarily older users, the strict
regulation of supply and purchase, the low levels of heroin use-associated problems,
and the general societal invisibility. Although perhaps not noticeable from the outside,
the subculture’s internal network is still reported to have undergone substantial
processes of reorganisation and alteration in the years since the scene’s inception in
the 1970s. The central players – referring to the main suppliers and those users with
easy access to the drug – are presented as having changed fundamentally. As already
outlined, the scene is reported to have been established by two – possibly independent,
possibly overlapping – factions of urban incomers: hippies and oil workers. None of
the interviewees refers to any area of overlap between the two factions in terms
of work or leisure time. Thus, that there might have been a few crossovers between
hippies and Sullom Voe employees can only be speculated.
Interviewees report that when the oil terminal was put into operation, many of the
urban incomers left the island and returned to their original homes. The townsman
Duncan (N), who claims to have watched the happenings and developments closely,
explains that after the departure of most of the oil workers, the Shetland drug scene
underwent a severe downturn: many drugs were no longer available on the island.
According to Duncan, a phase followed when solely drugs such as hashish and speed,
generally perceived as less suspect than heroin and cocaine, were obtainable locally.
Duncan: Yeah, yeah, there was a big big gap when all the oil workers went away. You know
wha’ I mean, you would never, you wouldnae have been able to ge’ cocaine, you wouldnae have
been able to ge’ blablabla, all you could ge’ here would be a bi’ a’ hash an’ speed brough’
up because it didn’ didn’ used to be suspectable an’ all the rest of it. […] [5, 28–32]

Nonetheless, the heroin scene apparently persisted on a very small scale and
was reactivated a few years later. In accordance with various interviews, this first
generation of heroin users and suppliers was followed by a second generation, now
consisting of not only urban incomers but also Shetlanders. The urban users are
described as having developed heroin use-related problems, such as dependency or
legal issues, in city heroin scenes during the 1980s–1990s. As a form of self-help,

206

8

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

they resorted to Shetland, where at the time the drug was relatively inaccessible to
outsiders. Interview accounts in this context contain both first- and second-hand
observations. First-hand information is provided by the six interviewees who
seemingly belong to this group. These six are Gordon (C), Duncan (N), Rick (C),
Gerry (C), Angus (N) and Robin (C). The following participant, whose identity
will for confidentiality reasons remain fully concealed here, may be typical of this
group. The Shetlander explains that they previously lived in a British city for a
considerable length of time, where they started to use heroin heavily and to engage
in the associated criminal scene. They state that at the point when they felt they
wanted to counteract their drug dependency, they decided to return to Shetland in
order to get the situation under control.
I: […] in the middle o’ the 90s, 95/96 I came to Shetland. There was like basically no heroin
in Shetland. Or very very little heroin in Shetland like. That’s why I came home because
there was none, you know? [2, 37–3, 4]

Equivalent narratives are given by the other five members of this group, who
report moving to Shetland between the late 1980s and the mid-1990s. Other
interviewees outwith this group also claim to have moved to Shetland to regain
control over their heroin use at some point in time. Since all six interviewees moved
up from different cities, the expression ‘group’ does not imply that its members
knew each other beforehand, but rather signifies the characteristics they share, such
as their comparable socio-economic backgrounds and pathways, their age group
and their patterns of frequent, mostly intravenous and at times dependent heroin
use. The local man Rick (C) emphasises that up until the late 1990s, people in
Shetland primarily drank alcohol. When the techno era reached the island, they also
began consuming ecstasy regularly, though still in a recreational weekend style as
opposed to destructively and addictively throughout the week [6, 2–6].
Corresponding to the six interviewees’ accounts, their health and living situations
improved significantly after having settled in Shetland. They attribute this to the
limited availability of heroin, the generally high socio-economic standards on the
islands and the extensive and easily accessible social welfare system. Still, it appears
none of the six was abstinent for considerable lengths of time. In the long run, these
incoming urban heroin users rather seem to have contributed to the emergence of a
second generation of Shetland heroin users and the further establishing and expanding
of the heroin subculture.

8.3
8.3.1

The Era of the Old School
The Old School Style of Regulating the Scene

In Sect. 3.1, the group described as the old school users were introduced for the first
time. It has been explained that on grounds of their own and others’ expositions, the
partly urban, partly Shetland users Gordon (C), Rick (C), Duncan (N) and Gerry
(C) can clearly be allocated to this sub-scene.

8.3 The Era of the Old School

207

The initial heroin-using generation of hippies and oil workers seems to have
moved to Shetland to escape moderate life or mainstream society. Thus, their move to
the remote and geographically isolated island was apparently motivated by the search
for adventure and a deeper ideological or ideational sense of life beyond the ordinary.
Considering such backgrounds together with numerous statements by various
participants, their impetus to use and continue using heroin appears to be completely
different from the old school’s. The latter, in contrast, all cite personal problems at
some stage in their lives as reasons for their turning to heroin use as a form of coping
strategy. Moreover, and probably in association with the motivation to consume heroin
to support one’s personal idea of problem management, all of them refer to periods
of heroin addiction. Because drug dependence apparently represented their lives’
centre points, they decided eventually to leave the easy and virtually unlimited drug
accessibility of their urban environments and moved to Shetland. There they intended
and apparently did regain control over their drug use and thus their lives.
The conclusion to draw from numerous accounts by different interviewees is that
the first generation of heroin users consciously and rigorously restricted the frequency
and quantity of heroin they consumed. Furthermore, they tended to exclusively supply
to their personal circle. The exclusiveness seems to have supported the ideational
meaning and function of the often communal drug use. Hence, it seems that these
conditions provided a secure framework within which heroin consumption could take
place safely with a minimum of associated risks. It might have been the case that
due to the conditions named above and the ideational meaning of heroin use for this
sub-scene, certain behavioural norms were perceived as self-evidently right and tacitly
adhered to. Apart from the restrictions, described above, concerning frequency and
quantity, implicit rules might have included never using heroin to manage personal
problems and never injecting. Explicit norms and rules might not have been necessary
within this faction of heroin users during this former era. The situation appears to be
different for the old school, who – in terms of social background, motivation to use
and means of use – bring significantly riskier prerequisites with them.
In Sect. 3.2, illustrations of the norms and rules enforced by the sub-scene of
the old school users have been represented. Briefly summarised, these include the
avoidance of dealing to people who had not previously used and youngsters in general,
of injecting in front of people not injecting themselves, of ‘grassing on’ other users
or dealers and of dealing only in small amounts without commercial gain.

8.3.2

The Properties and Conditions of the Heroin Market
Throughout the 1990s

8.3.2.1

Availability

The Shetlander Rick (C) reports that he first tried heroin on the urban mainland in
the late 1980s. He claims to have come across the drug in Shetland for the first time
only in the mid-1990s, even though he maintains that he used a wide variety of other

208

8

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

illicit drugs for a long time. He perceives himself as always having had a relatively
comprehensive overview of the island’s illegal drug scene and concludes that
before then heroin was only accessible to circles of the original users, suppliers and
their friends [6, 24–30]. Others, such as the Shetland man Angus (N), describe
comparable circumstances. He recounts living in a British city for a few years and
noticing that in the 1980s, heroin started to ‘take off’ virtually everywhere in urban
Britain – first in metropolitan England, and then farther north, until it eventually
reached Aberdeen in the North of Scotland. As others, he describes witnessing the
spread of heroin use across Britain, with rural and island locations – and finally
Shetland – being reached one after the other [2, 37–3, 4].
Angus (N): […] Aah, bu’ I was well into my 20s before I sor’ o’ started with heroin like.
R: How, how? How did you get into it?
Angus: Uumm, well, I was stayin’ in the… sor’ o’ kinna late 80s, that’s when heroin,
I mean, there just wasn’t, tha’ was quite rare thing even in Abderdeen. Then. It was kinda
quite a rare thing to be, to be helped, to be able to ge’ your hands on, ken. I’ wasn’ like,
I wouldnae say i’ was freely available, ken. An’ then in the late 80s it just, it started comin’
everywhere like, ken. Everyone, everyone I knew sor’ o’ started gettin’ into i’, ken. An’ it
seemed to be, an’ it just go’, it seems i’ jus’ go’ worse an’ worse an’ worse from the late
80s basically. So Abderdeen an’ the North o’ Scotland. Because when I first came home
to Shetland, um, tha’ was, wha’?, in the middle o’ the 90s, 95/96 I came home. There
was like basically no heroin in Shetland. Or very very little heroin in Shetland like. […]
[2, 37–3, 4]

Apart from Rick (C) and Angus (N), several other interviewed users confirm
that until the mid-1990s, only very small amounts of heroin were available on the
islands, and this was restricted to select groups [e.g. Helen, 2, 20–44].

8.3.2.2

Quality

Diverse interviewees assert that the quality of the heroin when it was limited and
restricted in supply was significantly purer than it is now. When comparing the
past heroin scene with the current one, the Shetland woman Helen (C) contrasts
the previous availability of good-quality heroin to a select group with the present
availability of less potent heroin to a wide group. Illustrating the discrepancy in
quality and potency, she refers to the former heroin as ‘dynamite’ and calls the
currently available drug ‘pure crap’. She explains that the scene has vastly expanded
and the drug has become accessible to a larger and more heterogeneous group of
people, but at the cost of the drug’s quality.
R:… An’ can you maybe describe what it was like? Like, I mean, that’s 20 years ago.
Helen (C): Yeah, dynamite. Then. Now it’s just pure crap. Pure, pure shit. Unless you ge’
it before they dance all over i’. Just depends.
[…]
R: Hm-m… An’ can you describe hooow, like, the heroin scene has changed in those
20 years you’ve been in it?
Helen: It’s go’ bigger. But the quality’s go’ so so bad, it’s unbelievable!… Bu’ there’s
quantity. Way way back it was only bits an’ pieces for a certain amount of people. Like
groups kinna thing, just shared among. […] [2, 20–44]

8.3 The Era of the Old School

209

It seems that good heroin was formerly available to ‘a chosen few’. This heroin is
described to have been consumed primarily in a ritualised manner within the framework of exclusive social gatherings. Over time, the status of heroin seems to have
changed from a celebrated, rare good into a purely commercial product. In general,
the scene appears to have undergone a process of overall commercialisation. This
process and its effects on the heroin scene are reflected and discussed in detail in
Sects. 5.3 and 5.4.

8.3.2.3

Accessibility

Before the heroin supply experienced commercialisation and centralisation in the
late 1990s, access to the opiate seems to have primarily depended on social relations.
According to several interviewees, the ability of someone to access the drug was
determined by who they knew.
Helen (C): […] Just depended on how many groups you knew among them all. Just like
tha’. [2, 20–44]

If someone was ‘well connected’ with people actively involved in the supply,
they were in a much better position than a person who knew just one circle of users
at the margins of the scene.

8.3.3

Police Turning a Blind Eye?

According to the statements of several interviewees, it seems that heroin use formerly
nearly always took place in a, from a socio-economic and social security point of
view, unobtrusive and unnoticeable way. Neither the general population nor the
council generally perceived heroin as exerting an acute threat to society. To a certain
degree, the police might have ‘turned a blind eye’ to the fact that heroin use
was happening in small, secretive groups. They were probably aware of opiate
consumption occurring on the island, but might have estimated its extent and nature
to be comparatively harmless. The townsman Duncan points to a feature of the
Shetland culture that might have come into play: the inclination to stick one’s head
in the sand regarding undesirable social phenomena.
Duncan (N): […] Righ’, whereas up here there was a really bad thing abou’, you know,
stick your head in the sand, you know? An’ i’ was like jus’ this absolute thing tha’ ‘Righ’,
we know it’s comin’ here an’ we know it’s happenin’ ‘Bu’ i’ was for a small group o’
people. […] [5, 33–37]

Hence, the tendency to ignore unwanted social occurrences combined with the
discreet nature of the heroin scene at the time appears to have led to relatively low
police attention for a long period. Participants refer to actions against drug users
having taken place throughout the 1980s and 1990s, but these appear to have been
rather limited, and not profoundly disruptive to the heroin subculture’s organisation

210

8

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

and structure [e.g. Duncan, N, 5, 29–32]. The lack of police intervention might
have contributed to the scene’s relatively inoffensive underground existence over a
period of up to 20 years. Even though several accounts support this impression,
they are sometimes relatively vague and refer to a bygone time and may therefore
contain some legendary or exaggerated elements.

8.3.4

A Changing Trend: A Gradual Growing
and Opening of the Scene

At a reasonable estimation, the Shetland heroin scene existed for two decades – from
the mid-/late 1970s until the mid-/late 1990s – in the low-key form outlined above.
Relevant reports by interviewees suggest that during this time, the subculture was
virtually integrated into the Shetland community. Several interviews explain that
the scene’s central features gradually began to change around the mid-1990s. One
originally urban, regular user, who states to often use heavily and to have been part
of the island heroin scene for many years now, claims that they watched heroin
slowly becoming obtainable in Shetland outwith the strict limits of small exclusive
circles. They assume heroin was available on the island before the mid-1990s, but
not to incomers and thus relative outsiders like themselves.
I (N): […] And I didn’t know that any smack used to come up here. […] I’d say it was here
before, ken, bu’ i’ was all very hush-hushed. Bu’ i’ is, you know, more opened in the past
10 years, I’d say. Yeah. [7, 39–47]

Other participants claim to have witnessed similar developments. On balance, they
all describe the heroin scene as having progressively opened up to previously uninvolved people in the past 10 years or so [e.g. Duncan, N, 1, 34–2, 8; Isaac, O,; Ben,
N,]. Slowly but steadily, more and more people have gained access to the drug.

8.3.4.1

Increase of Diverse Users with Varying Patterns of Use

The occasionally consuming Shetlander Isaac explains that with the growth of the
heroin scene on the island, the number of recreational, social users has increased
also. Consequently, a greater number of people now offer heroin in social drug
using contexts. He exemplifies these developments with his personal story. Due to
the overall spread of heroin use on the island, he repeatedly found himself in social
situations with friends and acquaintances who offered him heroin. He eventually
accepted one such offer and began to smoke and snort heroin occasionally with
friends [2, 7–13].
Isaac (O): Aah, well, that time i’ was, yeah. I mean, after tha’ it was gettin’ involved, bein’
along people who have been users as well. An’ they offered me so I tried a bit there as well.
Yeah. Purely used socially. An’ ah, yeah, an’ as the number of people that get involved with
it increases try an’ meet more an’ more people that be in situations like that have it an’ will
offer it socially. […] [2, 7–13]

8.3 The Era of the Old School

211

Isaac does not participate in social events that involve heroin use any more, but he
would consider using again in the right circumstances. However, just as he did not seek
out heroin deliberately before, he claims not to seek out heroin now. He exemplifies
the connection between the drug’s accessibility and the extent to which it is used.
Ben (N) describes a comparable pathway to heroin use. When the drug became
more widely used, friends brought some to his house, where he first tried the drug.
Identifying himself more as a ‘dope smoker’ than a heroin user, he explains that
heroin has an effect similar to cannabis, but much stronger. Since the range of
cannabis available on the island is very limited, he decided to try heroin for a change
and liked the feeling. Due to the drug’s ready availability, he continued to consume
it fairly often and in high quantities [3, 6–37].
In addition, the occasional user Christian attributes his own occasional use to
the drug’s widespread availability.
Christian (O) […] Probably the reason why I do it more regularly now, well, not particularly
regularly, bu’ more regularly than I did, is jus’ because there’s so many people I kno’ that
are takin’ it. [17, 36–38]

Interviewees suggest that, due to heroin having become easily accessible, many
people who would not have considered it previously began to use.

8.3.4.2

Increase of Injecting

In the course of the overall scene expansion, participants also mention a rise in the
number of people who began consuming heroin intravenously. While this method
used to be relatively rare, users from diverse circles started to engage in intravenous
using patterns. As already stated, according to interviews, the growing injection
rates did not solely apply to heroin but also to party drugs such as speed.

8.3.4.3

Growing Demand for Intervention

Interviewees have argued that along with the expansion of the heroin subculture, the
demand for treatment and intervention grew. Duncan (N) explains that the number
of people seeking intervention was previously so small that drug users were treated in
a building dedicated to the treatment of alcohol dependence. Eventually, however,
demand had risen to the extent that the Shetland drugs project was allocated its first
own premises. According to Duncan, at that time, one could already expect heroin
use and associated problems to grow further, which underlined the need to expand
treatment specifically for drug addiction.
Duncan (N): […] Well, before tha’ actually, i’ was very very very small. I’ was so small, so
tha’ was it - you just gave them a wee room in the the alcohol place. An’ obviously [previous
project manager] thought ‘No, it’s gettin’, it’s it’s a lo’ busier than that. We really do need
our own bit an’ everythin” […] [talks about time when project first moved to own premises]
Bu’ the deal then was, righ’, there was obviously gonna be, there was gonna be more trouble
comin’. I felt i’, I think most people really knew i’, you know I mean? [1, 34–2, 8]

212

8

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

Later in his interview, Duncan explains that up until the late 1990s, the number
of heroin users receiving methadone prescriptions amounted to just a handful before
it started to increase dramatically [5, 28–6, 39].

8.4

The Contained Commercialisation: On the Edge
of Explosion

8.4.1

Conditions Preceding and Promoting Spread
and Growth of Scene

8.4.1.1

Beginning Commercialisation and ‘Normalisation’
of Heroin Use: Aftermath of the Rave Era?

Several interviewees describe how in the late 1990s, a drug dealer noticed the grown
demand for heroin in Shetland and consequently began selling the drug on an intermittent basis. The Shetlander Ben (N) has already been presented above as having
gained access to heroin when it became available to people, like himself, who did
not belong to the previously exclusive user groups. Below, he is cited outlining how
the drug became more accessible to former outsiders every few months from around
1999. To begin with, he states, the drug was generally smoked and injecting remained
comparatively unusual for a further while.
Ben (N): […] An’ then there was, somebody realised ‘Aah, there’s a bi’ of a market on the
island for this’ you know? So I started buyin’ a bit, just now an’ again. An’ uumm,
R: That’s about five years ago?
[…]
Ben: An’, um, at that time it like maybe once every three or four months, there would be
some heroin to smoke. It was very rarely, it was never on a daily basis. Never ever every
day. [3, 6–18]

When speaking about the conditions under which the heroin subculture started
to spread out, interviewees repeatedly mention the rave era as a decisive trigger.
According to several interviewed users, the rave culture smoothed the way for the
subsequent expansion of the heroin culture. In line with interview accounts, the rave
culture in Shetland expressed itself primarily in the form of a large techno club
called ‘The Jubilee’, which attracted large numbers of younger and older, primarily
drug-taking dancers from the early until the late 1990s. Furthermore, interviewed users
repeatedly present the rave culture as having substantially promoted and normalised
the use of illicit drugs such as ecstasy, speed and cannabis. This normalisation trend
also appears to have encompassed heroin, though later and to a lesser degree.
Consequently, interviewees explain, heroin slowly but steadily reached a more
acceptable status amongst the general crowd of drug users.
Most participants speaking about this period argue that the rave era was significantly connected to the introduction of heroin into drug-using circles not previously
involved with the opiate. Some interviewees support the view of ‘smacky eccos’

8.4

The Contained Commercialisation: On the Edge of Explosion

213

[ecstasy tablets containing heroin] having initially supported the grown demand for
the heroin high. One Shetlander relates experiences he and several friends had
selling ecstasy tablets mixed with heroin in the Jubilee and pubs in the mid-1990s.
As he explains, people started to get used to, enjoy and finally require the specific
psychoactive effects of the heroin-based tablets. The interviewee affirms that in
his eyes, the heroin containing ecstasy pills offered on the Shetland drug market
decisively contributed to the creation of a general heroin demand. The participant also
offers a detailed account of the ‘explosion’ of ecstasy use and the surrounding party
culture preceding and eventually leading to the expansion of heroin consumption in
the late 1990s. In his view, a substantial proportion of the Shetland population
participated in the widespread MDMA use in Shetland during the 1990s and thus
paved the way to the subsequent development of the heroin subculture. When there
was ‘suddenly heroin on the island’, the interviewee and probably numerous other
people were determined to try out this new, exotic drug. With the general propensity
to experience states of strong intoxication common in Shetland, many islanders
were presumably relatively open to a novel psychoactive experience.
I (N): […] Abou’… 10 years ago the, aah, the ecstasy scene hit Shetland, in a big way.
E-v-e-r-y-body I know, eeeverybody was experimentin’ with, um, ecstasy. An’ that time
everybody was loved up, loads o’ cuddlin’, it was really nice in the pubs, i’ really was nice.
Bu’ people werenae buyin’ drink! They were buyin’ water. Sooo, police and authorities
became wise to the, this new culture. Now, ah, at that time, I I was sellin’ a lo’ of E. An’,
ah, you know ecstasy, you know yourself, an’ ecstasy it can be, it can be cocaine, it can be
speed, it can be acid an’ speed mixed together, it can be acid an’ cocaine mixed together.
Very rarely would you get pure E, what would then be MDMA. Ken? An’ a lo’ of the
ecstasy I was sellin’ at that time was, aaah, heroin-based. I sold smack. Bu’ I didn’t know
anythin’ abou’ heroin. Never knew anythin’ abou’ smack, to be honest. An’, aaah, sellin’
these an’ if I ever, I buy these Es an’ people would be comin’ up to me on the night ou’, at
the, at the, a’ a rave or nigh’ out. And they’d be sayin’, you know,’Oh, thanks s lo’, man!
Excellent! Those are excellent!’ An’ they really were smashed, I mean, smashed oot their
face. You had a whole row o’ people all sittin’ on the, on the couch at their tables, eyes half
closed, really, like leanin’ forward, gouchin’ is wha’ you call i’, yeah? Gouchin’, ken, really
smashed. An’ then there’s people dancin’ all night an’ that’s just non-stop, they keep
dancin’. […] So they, people tha’ were up dancin’ would go an’ say to the people tha’ were
si” in’ down ‘Come on! Get up! You’ve gonna keep movin’! An’ if you don’ move you’re
gonna gouch an’ that’s no’ good.’ So you’d get your friends an’ get them up an’ then they
dance an’ than they would be - ALIVE! They’d be charged up. Noo, I I never knew abou’
smack, none o’ my friends knew about smack. On the island i’ was a voodoo. It was ‘Fuckin’
smackheads! There’s no heroin gonna be happenin’ here!’ you know. An’ here’s me an’ a few
friends sellin’ smacky eccos. Only la”er knew that it was gonna be, you know - HEROIN. An’,
ah, at one time we got some pills that were, um, pure MDMA! Really. So I, so these people
went ‘That was shit! They were shit! I never fel’ anythin’!’ I was ‘That was MDMA, ken”
A whole different bargain.’ An because for weeks these people’d been takin’ smacky-based
eccos that was wha’ they were lookin’ for, in an E! An’ they never knew any be”er. An’, ah,
so that culture is how it got that the smack happened. As in smack-ecstasy. […]
R: Which year are you talking about now?
I: Hmm,… this is 2004, I would say, it would have been around 96/97. An’ ‘en, there was,
naw, it would have been even less than that. I would say it would be 99. 98/99. […] Yeah,
that’s wha’ I said. So suddenly there was heroin on the island. An’ I was crazed to try this.
For yeeaars I’d just been into cannabis. That’s where my drugs started – cannabis. Was
brilliant. Me an’ friends all started drinkin’ when we were about 13/14, I mean serious
drinkin’. [1, 15–2, 28]

214

8

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

To what degree ‘smacky eccos’ actually influenced the growth of the heroin
scene is difficult to assess: This may just be a myth. In any case, the interview data
strongly suggests a connection between the rave era and the increased demand for
and acceptance of the opiate. Through the dance culture and its closely associated
consumption of stimulants, drug use in general seems to have undergone a process
of commercialisation and normalisation. In the course of these developments, heroin
may have lost some of its stigma. Consequently, the drug appears to have become
more attractive to a greater and more diverse population.
Concerning the growth in demand for heroin on the island in the late 1990s, the
Shetland man Patrick (C) echoes Ben’s view that dealers who sold ecstasy and speed
at the Jubilee at some point began to also offer small amounts of heroin, which
stimulated the demand and supply dynamics with respect to the opiate [3, 34–43].
Additionally, several participants describe a direct relationship between the vast
intake of MDMA and the increased demand for the sedative heroin: After having
taken ecstasy heavily, users liked to counteract the effects of the MDMA with
sedatives, such as benzodiazepines or heroin [Gerry, N, 11, 13–20; Christian, O,
3, 34–37].

8.4.1.2

Shift from Party Drugs to Heroin

The Shetlander Christian (O) explains that his personal use also started this way
– he used stimulants at a party, returned home, and wanting to come down and sleep,
smoked some heroin [5, 34–6, 6].
Whereas Christian describes his consumption as always having been very infrequent and controlled, the two long-term and regular users Rick (C) and Gerry (C)
describe having seen many partygoers develop physical dependencies this way.
Gerry explains that some people started to use the opiate after a weekend of heavy
ecstasy use as kind of ‘weekend treat’. However, he also claims to know of others
who gradually began to extend their heroin use to weekdays, and thus obtained
heroin habits of varying severities [4, 6–21]. Rick, again, asserts that the extreme
extent of stimulant use during the rave years caused many Shetlanders to take sedatives like heroin to facilitate a physical and emotional ‘come-down’ from MDMA
or amphetamines. He argues that users also took heroin to counteract short- and
long-term anxiety and depression resulting from heavy stimulant use. He recounts
his observations of former heavy ecstasy users who ‘treated’ their stimulant-induced
anxieties with heroin, and in the course of their self-medication became what he
calls, ‘full-on heroin addicts’. Hence, in agreement with other interviewees, Rick
regards the tendency towards significantly increased heroin use to be activated by
the foregone rave epoch. Like Gerry, he associates the changing drug trend with the
extreme users of Shetland’s ecstasy-taking population. In a way, these drug takers
seemingly have shifted their substance dependence from MDMA to heroin.
Rick (C): […] I know, when I was in [place on the British mainland] there’d be all these
guys, heavy ecstasy users an’ that in the late 80s, by like the mid-90s they were full-on
heroin addicts, ken? An’ the guys who werenae on heroin seemed to be really unstable,

8.4

The Contained Commercialisation: On the Edge of Explosion

215

really anxious people, ken? […] Why people go’ into heroin in the mid-90s was after tha’
ecstasy an’ the pure comedoon fae all tha’. I’ve heard people sayin’ things like, they cannae
go oot anymaer the weekends unless they had ecstasy. An’ the weekend wasn’ the same
unless they had stuff like tha’, an’ that’s gonna become problematic. [Rick, C, 9, 26–36]

In more general terms, Christian (O) posits the existence of ‘addictive personalities’, and the interchangeability of psychoactive substances. He argues that specific
people will always consume some drug dependently, be it opiates or amphetamines
[18, 36–41]. Previously, participants have already been cited as advancing the view
of Shetlanders as tending to excessive and often addictive substance use without
being committed to one specific drug. From the arguments of interviewees on this
subject, it seems that the drugs people choose to consume are to a certain degree
interchangeable and determined by the predominant current drug trend.
The Shetlander Christian has been quoted above in connection with party
drug-takers starting to use heroin after stimulant use, naming himself as an example.
Equivalent pathways into heroin use have also been described by the two Shetland
men Angus (N) and Patrick (C, 1, 27–29). The former claims to have started his
heroin using career, which includes long periods of heavy injecting, in this manner.
Angus (N): No. no, in Aberdeen. When I first go’ intae takin’ heroin, I mean, I was goin’
out quite a lo’ the weekends, I was drink, takin’ a lo’ o’ speed an’ ecstasy an’ that, goin’ out,
drinkin’ a lo’ aaan’ sor’ o’ started ge” in’ into heroin by like just smokin’ i’ after, like on a
Sunday night, Saturday night after doin’ Es for quite a few days. [3, 40–45]

In the beginning of this section on the transition from the second to the third
stage of the Shetland heroin scene, the notion of a certain normalisation of heroin
use has been proposed. The interview analysis, covering a range of interviewees
with various using patterns and personal histories, seems to support this thesis.

8.4.1.3

Changing Social Status of Heroin: Reduction of the Stigma

Echoing the argument made by several interviewees, the occasional user Christian
(O) talks about the diminishing of the stigma and fear customarily attached to the
consumption of heroin in Shetland by the general public [18, 21–26]. The Shetland
man attributes the growth in heroin use to the reduction in the associated stigma – an
association that has already been sketched above. Still, most interviewees present
this development as being of relative and restricted nature, primarily referring to
specific groups only rather than the general Shetland population. In line with the
course the drug scene took following the rave, a large number of recreational party
drug users seem to have lost their previous fear of heroin. Hence, the reputation of
the opiate might have lost some negative connotations, even though the aversive
attitude towards it appears to have persisted within large parts of the community,
and particularly amongst older generations. According to participant accounts, these
are generally ignorant of the differences between the various illicit drugs available
on the islands. Apart from the relative loss of the ‘fear factor’, Christian also speaks
of the ‘novelty factor’ of heroin, increasing its appeal. Since heroin had previously
only been accessible to a very select few, it might now, with its slightly more

216

8

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

acceptable status and easier availability, have gained a new attractiveness for a
greater population [18, 26].
8.4.1.4

Cultural Prerequisite: Openness to Experiment with Substances

Besides the conditions directly involving heroin and other drugs, a number of
Shetland-specific cultural conditions have been named as factors involved in the
opening up of the island heroin scene. The Shetlander Christian (O) outlines several
cultural aspects that, in his eyes, are related to the transition from the second to the
third phase. When heroin started to become more easily accessible, he explains, many
people were ready to experiment with it, since Shetlanders always had exhibited a
strong propensity towards trying out new experiences, including taking psychoactive
substances. He expresses his concern about the opiate having become available to
young persons now, who might consume in a risky fashion [17, 34–39].

8.4.2

Drug Use in a Globalised World1: The British
Heroin-Using Trend Finally Reaching Shetland?

As already mentioned, a number of interviewed users describe parallels and similarities between the changes and developments in the drug scene in Shetland and on
the mainland of Scotland in earlier times. Parallels refer to the movement towards
heroin use after the heyday of the rave epoch, which apparently took place in mainland
Scotland several years earlier. Various participants claim to have experienced a
very similar pattern of events when they lived in different Scottish and English cities
[e.g. Angus, 11, 38–44; Rick, 9, 23–28]. Interviews suggest a national or possibly
even European heroin-using trend that arrived in Shetland after a considerable delay
that is presumably related to the unusually remote and geographically isolated location
of the island. The parallels concerning drug-using trends between Shetland and
overall Britain will be illuminated thoroughly at a later stage of this chapter as well
as in part III in relation to the existing scientific literature.
8.4.2.1

Time Scale

Thus far, a sketch has been presented of the central changes and transitions
between the era of the old school and the contained commercialisation, as well as
of the respective outcomes. Furthermore, reasons, causes and triggers involved in
these processes have been identified and outlined. The available information has
been synthesised and presented regarding the chronology of the processes and

1

This headline is based on the title of Philip Lalander’s book Hooked on Heroin: Drugs and
Drifters in Globalized World (2003).

8.4

The Contained Commercialisation: On the Edge of Explosion

217

occurrences in connection with the Shetland heroin scene. Although this endeavour is
conducted with systematic accuracy, the actual points in times when certain incidents
took place can never be specified with exact precision, as the information is derived
from interviews and thus subjective representations rather than objective records.

8.4.3

Availability and Quality

8.4.3.1

Easier Availability from 1998

The three long-term users Rick (C), Gordon (C), and Claire (C) as well as Ben (N),
who states to have started consuming heroin when the availability increased – provide
very similar time specifications. Between 1998 and 1999, the previously harsh
restrictions of the opiate’s availability started to loosen [Rick, 1, 4–11; Gordon, 2,
31–3, 14; Claire, 1, 38–2, 11; Ben, 1, 15–2, 28]. The Shetland woman Claire claims
to have hardly noticed any heroin use and sale taking place in Shetland before the
year 1999. Her statement is supported by Ben, also a native Shetlander, who declares
that in 1998/1999 ‘suddenly there was heroin on the island’. He continues, ‘and
I was crazed to try this whereas for years I’ve just been into cannabis’ [1, 51–52; 2,
25–27]. With this addition, Ben highlights the relationship between availability/
offer and demand. As long as heroin was scarce, he satisfied his desire for intoxication
with cannabis. When heroin became an obtainable good, however, other people
started trying it out and his own curiosity was awakened. As already discussed,
the availability of a drug appears to be directly related to its general popularity:
The offer can – probably in combination with other sociocultural factors – reinforce
and foster the demand. This association will be attended to and discussed in the
subsequent section on the commercial peak.
According to one participant originating from the urban mainland, the opening
of the island heroin market was amongst other things linked with their personal
contacts to mainland dealers. The person claims to have previously utilised these
connections solely for their own and their immediate social clique’s heroin demand.
From 1998, however, they apparently let a wider circle have a share in their heroin
supply [2, 32–37].
Despite the described transformations, the subculture still seems to have maintained a relatively exclusive, smallish character for a while, as asserted by Rick in
the following excerpt. Whereas, he explains, in former times, users were hardly ever
younger than their late 20s, at the end of the 1990s youngsters already had access to
the opiate.
Rick (C): […] ‘Cos really tha’ is when i’ did start off was ‘99 an’ really, ken? I’ wasnae
until ‘99 that it started becomin’ kinna available but was really exclusive, and kept that way.
Bu’ i’ was startin’ to change just because, ken, […] people gettin’ younger tha’ is, because
i’ was people maer aroon’ my age an’ older like, ken? [1, 4–11]

Later in the interview, Rick estimates the exclusive nature of the heroin subculture
to have continued until around the end of 2000. Up to this point, the participant, as

218

8

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

others, describes the scene in its core to have included no more than between 12 and
14 people, with ages ranging predominantly from late 20s to 50s [2, 5–15].
Even though the heroin supply is generally presented as having begun to grow
during the period of contained commercialisation, the amounts of the drug available
were apparently still limited. The above-cited Shetlander Rick asserts that no more
than 2 oz [ca. 57 g] were ever disseminated in Shetland at a time and that there could
be many weeks in between deliveries [3, 7–9].

Heroin Quality During the Contained Commercialisation
Only limited, partly vague information is provided regarding the heroin quality
during the phase of contained commercialisation. Interview accounts suggest that the
average heroin quality in this phase tended to be lower than during the foregoing era
of the old school but on average still ranged between relatively good and ‘reasonable’
[e.g. Gordon, C, 4, 10–35]. Sometimes, as affirmed by the long-standing user Rick
(C), the heroin on sale during Peter’s time even reached a purity of almost 50%,
which compares to very good, strong urban heroin. The Shetland man backs up his
statement by referring to a police report concerning the arrest of someone carrying
heroin of 48.7% purity [7, 18–25].

8.4.4

Supply Network

8.4.4.1

From Small Group Supply to One Main Dealer

The analysis of the relevant interview extracts suggests one major transformation
with respect to the organisation of the heroin supply network around the year 1998.
Previously, certain people seemed to have had better access to heroin than others,
due to good connections with heroin suppliers on the urban mainland or for other
reasons. Nonetheless, the system of heroin provision appears to have chiefly relied
on the different consumer groups and circles organising their own supplies. Measures
of procurement, as described by participants, included one or more persons travelling
to the mainland to buy the drug from an urban dealer, for example, in Aberdeen,
which is the closest major city. Otherwise, a group might have arranged – again
through contacts on the mainland – to have the drug posted to Shetland. Other
transport options, such as fishing boats, are also mentioned but not explained further.
Besides, several small-scale dealers apparently existed, who supplied their immediate
circles of friends. By the year 1998, the personal supply system was seemingly
in a large part replaced by the supply through one main dealer – Peter, a man
originating from urban Britain [e.g. Claire, C, 1, 38–39; Duncan, C, 5, 43–6, 6].
Concluding from interviews, Peter was the first to start a business as a commercial
heroin dealer, bringing considerable amounts of heroin up to Shetland with the
intention to supply for profit.

8.4

The Contained Commercialisation: On the Edge of Explosion

219

The stringent amount restrictions that applied to heroin distribution in Shetland
until the beginning of the twenty-first century have been explored above. Various
interviewees describe a fixed set of rules and conditions according to which
Peter supplied and dealt the opiate. Inferring from participant accounts, between
approximately 1998 and the end of 2000 or the beginning of 2001, Peter experienced the peak of his dealing activities and held the major part of the island’s heroin
supply. Apparently, he represented the head of an organised supply system with
boundaries as to who could receive the drug and how much they could have
[e.g. Gerry, 2, 15–39].
Duncan (N): […] An’ i’ was like jus’ this absolute thing tha’ ‘Righ’, we know it’s comin’
here an’ we know it’s happenin” ‘Bu’ i’ was for a small group o’ people. An’ I must say,
there was a time, for quite a long time there was one, I would say, there was just the one
person who really sold […] the stuff. […] Aaah,… tha’ was, he was like, you know, i’ was
all pretty regular. The guy tha’ used to ge’ the stuff from [British city] an’ all tha’ was from
[British city] himself an’ was quite like tha’, didnae like the spread of it.
[…]
R: When when when was that? Which year?
Duncan: Aaah, this was all happenin’ like abou’, tha’ was all happenin’, when i’ first
started happenin’ maybe like, ah, five, five, six years ago.
R: Right. Oh right! I thought, you’re talking about like a lot longer ago. Yeah, hm-m.
Duncan: No, no, a lot longer ago it was when i’ was like, you know wha’ I mean, you
hardly ever hear abou’ it and blabla. […] [5, 34, 6, 13]

Peter seems to have provided a substantial number of users relatively regularly
with considerable amounts of heroin, albeit conforming to his clear regulation
scheme. Even though it appears that Peter was the earliest large-scale commercially
oriented dealer, he apparently did not supply in an undifferentiated manner to every
potential customer: The circle of users supplied by him was to all appearances still
relatively exclusive [e.g. Rick, C, 2, 5–15]. In spite of the centralised supply scheme
set up and regulated by Peter, the former social network of small groups purchasing
and consuming heroin together seems to have continued to coexist [e.g. Rick, C, 2,
5–15; Patrick, C, 2, 26–28].

8.4.4.2

Supply Control: ‘Keeping the Lid On’

Different participants provide variously detailed accounts of the supply organisation
dictating how heroin was sold and distributed during the days of contained commercialisation. Gerry (C), a mainlander and long-term user in his 30s, seems to
have had a chance to witness and observe this internal organisation closely through
his personal participation. Below, he is quoted presenting the specifics of Peter’s
supply system with great precision and clarity. For this reason, his descriptions are
allotted particular weight and space in this and the following three subsections.
Below, the user describes how Peter deliberately arranged a heroin provision
interrupted by intervals of up to 6 or 8 weeks. This way, Gerry explains the dealer
intended to counteract the development of severe heroin dependencies and maintain
control over the scene. Although he points to the drawback of short-term physical

220

8

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

and psychological hardship for people who had used regularly and heavily enough
to develop drug habits, the participant seems to recognise this method as successful
in ‘keeping the lid on’ – that is, in avoiding the spread of a ‘heroin epidemic’.
In Gerry’s report, Peter’s careful scheme was partly motivated by caution with
respect to the police. He apparently tried to sustain a thorough and comprehensive
level of secrecy regarding his illegal actions. Participant statements suggest that,
besides apprehension of the police, he also feared the disapproval of the public.
Given that Peter sought to avoid instigating a heroin addiction epidemic, it is
possible that he was also acting with a sense of moral responsibility.
Gerry (C): […] When, when [Peter] was doin’ it […] there would be spells where we
would go go through a bi’ o’ a drought. Sometimes. six to eight weeks sometimes. So i’ was
kinna, in a way i’ was good, because everybody got back into a little break. An’, ah, it
caused problems for some people. Heavier users were kinda sufferin’ for the six to eight
weeks kinda thing. Bu’ at the same time I ‘ink in a way it was, I ‘ink in a way i’ was his way
of tryin’ to keep people, tryin’ to keep people’s addictions from spirallin’ out of control.
The amount o’ people wi’ problematic addictions, I ‘ink, he did try to keep a bi’ of a lid on
for tha’ reason. He didn’t want to be the one that was to,… to blame kinda thing for a, for a
heroin epidemic in Shetland.
R: That’s a quite considerate way of dealing.
Gerry: Well, he was a bit like that. He he he wasn’t too bad a bloke. Bu’ I ‘ink as well as,
as well kinda, he didn’t want to be kinda pointed out as bein’, the demand he started kinda,
he didn’t want to be, he wanted it to be kept kinda as tight, kinna compact so that the police
didn’t get too much to go on kinda thing. An’ they’d been watchin’ a few o’ them. They’d
been watchin’ a few o’ them for a while an’, ah, an’ they were pretty close to kinna ge’‘in’,
ge’ to them for a, for a long while. [3, 15–39]

Peter’s style of dealing could be termed ‘contained commercialisation’, as the
incentive to trade in heroin appears to be financial profit, but not at any price.
8.4.4.3

Peter’s Dealing Network

Elsewhere in his interview, Gerry elucidates the precise organisation of Peter’s supply
scheme. In accordance with his descriptions, the dealer operated a carefully calculated
network. In spite of dealing fairly large amounts of heroin, he would exclusively sell
to a fixed circle of three or four regular users, who again would sell to their own fixed
groups of around 15 users. This way the interviewee estimates that Peter supplied a
total of approximately 40 regular and 20 semi-regular customers, amounting to a
permanent clientele of around 60. In addition to heroin, Peter apparently dealt
‘everything else’, including cocaine, ecstasy and cannabis. However, due to the
particular stigma attached to heroin, the dealer seemingly maintained a deliberate
separation of heroin and all other drug supply. In this fashion, Gerry explains, the long
established network of heroin users was relatively well-preserved and continued for
the period Peter held the position as Shetland’s only large-scale dealer.
Gerry (C): […] And the other guy, who got jailed last year, [Peter], he he’d been dealin’
quantities, he’d been dealin’ a lo’, kinna large amounts, bu’ at the same time i’ was kept,
you know, kinda, kinna tryin’ to put a bit of a curb on it, control of it kinda thing.

8.4

The Contained Commercialisation: On the Edge of Explosion

221

R: And how? Can you say?
Gerry: Just by he would only ever supply to three or four people an’ each of them, the three
or four people would have their own kinda 10, 15 kinda regular customers. 10 regulars an’
five kinna semi-regular customers. So even, even, like it was two, two an’ a half years i’ was
still kinna kept, kinda quite tight. Again the same, the same reason as the last time when
I spoke to you. It’s kinda, it still is largely frowned on by most of the kinda recreational drug
takers. People can take ecstasy an’ things like tha’ at the weekends but they go ‘Uhuh
[depreciative], I don’t want to be associated with any of that’ kinda thing’. So in a way it
was always kept, even tho’ he was dealin’ everythin’, both o’ them have been caught with
large amounts, like dealin’ about everythin’. It it was kinda kept separate, kept the two
things kinda separate. Their own little set o’ people tha’ sold ecstasy in the street an’ cocaine
an everythin’ an’ hash, you know, their own little group. So it was kept kinna pretty tight till
a coupla years ago. […] [2, 14–40]

Gerry presents Peter as having exerted control over the heroin scene by means
of various measures, such as limiting the amounts of heroin he supplied, consciously
arranging spells of heroin droughts and dealing to select groups of people only.
Moreover, Peter’s endeavours to keep the heroin scene contained appear to have
followed a specific set of rules.

8.4.4.4

Continuation of the Old School Values

Despite Peter’s apparent commercial motivation, Gerry portrays the dealer as
having prioritised the well-being of the community over the opportunity to gain the
most profit possible. Gerry’s account suggests that the dealer continued to uphold
the values, norms and rules previously promoted and enacted by the old school.
As an example of the value system of the old school users, among whom Gerry
also rates himself, the interviewee names the refusal of supply to young people as a
crucial one of numerous behavioural rules.
Gerry (C): [lights a cigarette] It’s just been, yeah, with [Peter], he kinda, he kinda tried to
keep a bi’ of a lid on it. Keep it contained. The minimum kinda, tryin’ to keep kinda,
everybody, who was dealin’ for him knew kinda his se’ a’ rules kinda, no’ any of them, no’,
not, it was kinda, ‘Don’t deal to school kids’, it was kinda ‘Not teenagers’, no anybody,
again it was ‘Heroin goes round. Do it the old school’ kinna thing. Keep it to the old school
kinda thing. So it was kinna like that. [3, 3–11]

Apparently, the dealer made great efforts avoiding the creation of a serious heroin
problem on the island. As head of the heroin subculture at that time, he exerted strict
and carefully organised controls and regulations over the supply system. In this way,
a certain sociocultural homeostasis could be maintained concerning both the
subculture’s social interior and its inconspicuous integration into the general
community. The former entails the prevention of serious addiction and the spread
of drug-related antisocial behaviours and norms. The latter, closely related to the
former and partly resulting from it, refers to the restriction of the appreciable social
cost – that is, the impact the heroin scene can have on Shetland’s society, the island’s
individual communities.

222

8.4.5

8

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

Once Again at the Verge of a Changing
Trend: On the Edge of Explosion

Many interview accounts show the sociocultural homeostasis described above as
having started to sway increasingly until it basically collapsed in late 2000.
As reported by different interviewees, Peter had taken over and centralised a major
part of the Shetland heroin supply in the late 1990s. Nonetheless, consumption still
seems to have chiefly taken place within the scope of small, relatively intimate user
groups and subgroups. Along with numerous others, the young Shetlander Patrick
(C) describes the character of the heroin scene around the turn of the millennium,
when he initially started consuming heroin.
Patrick (C): […] Yeah, when I was first startin’ i’ was kinda like peerier groups. Bu’ i’ was
just on the very very edge of explosion, ken? […] [2, 26–28]

Patrick’s experiences of the subculture at this point in time seem primarily
determined by friends consuming together rather than by an undifferentiated, big,
commercially oriented crowd. However, the personal, communal character was just
about to change significantly.
8.4.5.1

The Explosion

Patrick recounts that when heroin first became readily available at the end of the
1990s, he did not immediately try the drug. However, when finally ‘heroin had
exploded onto the scene’ around the end of 2000 and a great proportion of his social
circle began getting involved with the opiate, he eventually started consuming.
Soon the frequency and severity of his use progressed to regular and then to heavy
[1, 5–6]. The older long-term user Gordon (C) identifies Christmas 2000 as point
in time when heroin really ‘kicked off’ in Shetland [1, 8].
Interestingly, Patrick is not alone in using the word explosion to characterise the
fundamental transition the scene suddenly underwent around the start of the new
millennium. Four older users employ the same expression to describe the volcano-like
surge in heroin use that suddenly struck the island [Gordon, C, 2, 34; Duncan, N,
10, 31–33; Gerry, C, 12, 33; Angus, N, 11, 35–44]. The four interviewees – two
Shetlanders and two mainlanders – live in three different parts of Shetland and
apparently use within three different user circles, thereby substantiating and validating
the statement. One Shetland participant describes the fast, uninhibited and hazardous
increase in heroin use and users as a flood, thus equating the expansion with an
overwhelming natural catastrophe [Rick, C, 3, 7]. Another user, the young Shetland
man Oscar (C), speaks of the heroin having ‘taken off’, thus likening the rapid rise
with, for example, the launch of a rocket or the economic take-off of a commercial
product [1, 4–7].
Above, Patrick has been cited regarding the continuation of the heroin scene’s
originally prevailing structure of small user groups until roughly the end of 2000.
Seemingly tying in with Patrick’s account, Gerry (C) describes the subsequent

8.5

The Commercial Peak: Flood Gates Opened

223

changeover, which he calls an ‘explosion into a major scene’. He regards this
development as part of the dynamic activated by the preceding rave era. The phase of
contained commercialisation may thus be interpreted as a preliminary stage before
uncontained commercialisation. The progression to uncontained commercialisation,
during which the numbers of heroin users are reported to have increased ‘exponentially’, seems to be suitably caught by the term explosion [Duncan, C, 10, 49].
In his quotation, the long-term user Gerry describes the overall shift from
dance and party drugs, such as ecstasy and speed, to heroin. A few participants,
including Gerry, maintain that many people suddenly preferred heroin gatherings
at private homes to going out and partying, thus causing a notable temporary
reduction in the overall social nightlife. He describes a type of domino effect of such
private, relatively intimate get-togethers encouraging previous non-users to also try
out heroin.
Gerry (C): […] So, I’ink, yeah, it’s kinda gone from bein’ kinda, gone from bein’ kinda
close, small, small groups o’ people kinda exploded into a kinda, pretty much a major
scene, kinna thing. So, I’ink, tha’ pretty much took over the ecstasy kinda scene in Shetland
tha’ was there for a long time. For a while the nightclubs an’ things were pretty empty the
weekends. They were kinda, a lo’ o’ the people that would normally been out on the weekends
takin’ Es an’ things, they weren’ goin’ out takin’ these things an’ stayin’ in an’ havin’ a bag
a’ gear instead. I ‘ink, when tha’, that was bringin’ other people into usin’ as well, kinna
thing. [12, 32–33, 16]

Gerry describes a profound inclination towards heroin consumption that determined the island’s drug and general social scene during the era of the commercial
peak. Having personally been involved specifically in the heroin scene for many years,
his perception of an extreme spread of heroin use could be somewhat exaggerated.
Nonetheless, his statements are supported by similar accounts of numerous other
interviewees.

8.5

The Commercial Peak: Flood Gates Opened

Above, numerous interviewees have been quoted, who state an explosion-like
expansion of the Shetland heroin scene around the turn of the millennium. The precise
effects of this substantial transformation on the scene’s features and nature, as
well on as its internal structure and organisation, will be explored in the following
section.

8.5.1

Spreading Out and Noticeability

As already suggested, interviewees seem to apply the term explosion not only to
the rapid rise in heroin availability but also to the number of people using and the
overall extent of use. In both regards, virtually all interviewed users agree. The most

224

8

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

expressive and demonstrative comments as synthesised from the interview accounts
will now be presented in order to reflect the changes and its coherences.
Emphatically, the Shetland man Rick (C) points out the massive growth of the
Shetland heroin market in a relatively short period of time. According to his report, in
2001 the supply had expanded to possibly 30 or even 40 times the amount available
a year or two earlier.
Rick (C): […] You’ve gotta remember like in ‘99 i’ was like an ounce comin’ up, two
maybe at the most. An’ then by two thousand and one there’s kilos of it. Kilos, like two,
maybe eight, nine bars a’ heroin, ken? You get nine bars a’ dope an’ there’s jus’ comin’ in
nine bars a’ heroin like. Tha’s a SERIOUS increase! [3, 8–12]

Other interviewees provide comparably vigorous accounts, conveying the
impression of a dramatic surge in heroin use. With the same intensity that Rick
exhibits whilst discussing the growth of the heroin market, the young Shetland
woman Hannah (C) speaks about the increase in the number of people having
begun – partly regularly and heavily – to use heroin. She goes as far as to draw
parallels between the conspicuousness of heroin users in the town centre of Lerwick
and the city centre of Aberdeen. Since she speaks as a person involved in the heroin
scene herself, who knows many other people engaged in the subculture, it remains
unclear how far non-users would have noticed the occurrences.
Hannah (C): […] The amounts o’ heroin tha’ was in Shetland before […] was jus’
ridiculous, I mean. An’ the amount o’ people usin’ in Shetland was jus’ gettin’, I mean, was
gettin’ to the stage tha’ you walked over Commercial Street an’ you could IMMEDIATELY
spot ou’ heroin users. An’ that’s somethin’ I used to find when I went to Aberdeen. You
would walk up Union Street an’ you’d think ‘Oh my God! That person’s really bad on
heroin, that person!’ An’ you’d never thought that i’ would get to that stage where you can
go ou’ on Commercial Street, uumm, at any time a day an’ people would be ‘JESUS! Look,
here’s a heroin addict, here’s another one!’ You know, that’s how much an’ how far heroin
became available. […] [7, 17–36]

Many correspondents’ reports suggest that the inflated quantities of heroin offered
on the local drug market were accompanied by significantly facilitated access,
bringing the drug to a much wider consumer base than before. The long-term, originally urban user Gerry (C) also emphasises the comfortable availability and easy
accessibility of heroin on the island. He confidently asserts that, in contrast to earlier
times, even completely uninvolved outsiders and even foreigners, such as the author,
would have been in the position to obtain heroin during the period of the drug’s
affluent and ready availability. In particular, those people who had just newly begun
to consume heroin would have been prepared to assist complete novices with the
purchase of heroin. Interviewees explain that such users offered to help in order to
receive a share of the obtained heroin as payment. The readiness to help a previously
uninvolved person to acquire heroin is stated to be greater amongst newer users, who
are less socialised according to traditional values. A person already engaged in the
subculture for a long time might be more likely to adhere to regulations – for example,
those of the old school, which stipulate that users must not supply to those not known
for being users. Thus, they might be more likely to prioritise the continuation of the
heroin scene’s control, forfeiting short-term profit for long-term gain [5, 8–25].

8.5

The Commercial Peak: Flood Gates Opened

225

Before illuminating the conditions and consequences of the apparently gigantic
rise in heroin supplied, user numbers and overall use throughout Shetland, it is worth
exploring the events immediately associated with the changes. Therefore, a look
will now be taken at developments concerning the scene’s supply.

8.5.2

Conditions Associated with the Expansion
of the Scene: Supply Network

8.5.2.1

Two People Dealing

Most participants convey the impression of a sudden, unexpected outburst, while
several of the interviewed users also describe gradual developments preceding and
finally leading to the ‘heroin boom’. It has already been outlined that even though
Peter apparently supplied considerable quantities of heroin on a relatively regular
basis, the former balance of the scene internally as well as with the community could
be continued. According to the long-term user Gordon (C), a number of people were
involved in the events and processes that finally caused the end of this balance. Gordon
explains that paradoxically one or two members of the old school users, who were
involved in heroin dealing during the time Peter constituted the head of the heroin
supply system, pressurised the main supplier into expanding and intensifying his
heroin trade. As a consequence of more heroin becoming available and more people
having access to greater amounts of the opiate, the severity and extent of heroin
addiction in Shetland rose. This, Gordon argues, caused the strict old school values
to deteriorate, as with intensifying addictions people tended to distribute the drug in
fairly undifferentiated manners. The user also explains that many of the original old
school users began to develop severe heroin habits and to act in line with the overall
developments. By and large, a shift in priorities appears to have taken place: Whereas
most users previously seem to have treated the preservation of the subculture’s
secretiveness and control as a central concern, many would now give preference
to maximising their personal supplies by, for example, selling heroin profitably.
In Gordon’s account, the model whereby relatively few people obtained heroin from
Peter to sell to fixed groups of other users underwent a considerable debilitation. He
offers himself as an example of someone who had previously adhered to the norms of
the old school, but started to abandon these rules as he developed a heroin habit.
Gordon (C): […] But the first five months he [Peter] was doin’ it [dealing heroin], there
was only, what?, 12 or 14 users in the group that go’ anythin’. And when I go’ addicted
myself I started to fork to everybody. […] [2, 35–37]

The traditional norms of secrecy and restraint are reported to have further loosened
when a second large-scale dealer, Johnny,2 arrived on the scene. His demeanour
and impact will now be outlined.
2

Name changed.

226

8

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

According to Gordon, the heroin scene had ‘kicked off’ over Christmas 2000,
when Peter still held the monopoly as Shetland’s only big dealer [3, 16–33]. Still,
Gerry (C) – who like Gordon was one of the original old school users – maintains
that until the end of 2001, the heroin subculture encompassed no more than 30–40
regular consumers and had not yet fully lost its controlled character. Participant
accounts agree that at some point in 2001, Johnny – a young Shetland man in his
mid-20s – returned to Shetland after he had finished a jail sentence for dealing
drugs, including heroin. The reports of different participants suggest that he entered
into the island’s drug – and in particular heroin – business, and substantially expanded
it together with the older Peter. Many interviewees, such as Gerry (C) quoted
below, suggest that Johnny’s return played a key role in the continuing expansion
of the heroin scene. Evidently, Peter and the people working with him had already
established a regular heroin supply. Thus they had prepared the scene for the further
commercialisation that seemingly gripped the subculture when the two dealers
entered into joint venture. Nonetheless, Gerry asserts that they also competed,
attempting to outperform each other by dealing more and better heroin. This, the interviewee explains, further promoted the spread of heroin addiction across the islands
and undermined the original norms and rules of control, secrecy and caution.
Gerry (C): […] An’ then [Johnny] came back on the scene an’ that changed everythin’.
Because tha’ was two people that started a bit of a, [Peter] had greened up the estates a bit,
started keepin’ a regular supply. Supply more, be’‘er quality. So tha’ little kinna battle
goin’ on.
R: Between the two, yeah.
Gerry: Between the two o’ them. An’, an’ it ended up with there bein’ more, more gear
available than wha’ needed to be available. An’ the amount o’ people I know now that have
got opiate addictions, tha’ didn’t have two or three years ago, is ridiculous. I mean, as I say,
even a little, two and a half year ago it was still kept to a kinna small, tight group. 30, 40
people kinna thing. [3, 39–4, 2]

The Shetland heroin scene seems to have been restricted to a tight network
of suppliers and users for about two decades before, almost suddenly, ‘there was
constant supply’ [Gerry, C, 2, 38–50].
8.5.2.2

Changing Principles: From Social to Commercial?

It seems that as a result of the preparatory work by Peter and his collaborators and
the advent of Johnny, the old school normative control system was gradually
replaced by a determined and uncompromising commercial system. ‘Greed’, and
‘greed and money’ – especially on the part of the dealers – is repeatedly named as a
major factor involved in these substantial commercial transformations [e.g. Patrick,
C, 3, 48; Gerry, C, 1, 7–11]. Different interviewees discuss the fatal consequences
of giving up the original ‘small group supply system’ that helped maintain some
control over both the number of users and the quantity of heroin circulating on
the islands. The abandoning of the close-knit structure fundamentally endangered
the regulation of the underground heroin subculture, which had been carefully
preserved for a long time [e.g. Patrick, C, 3, 43–4, 2; Gerry, C, 1, 13–15].

8.5

The Commercial Peak: Flood Gates Opened

227

Interviewees report that after the two dealers had supplied the island together
for a while, Peter was caught by the police, convicted, and handed a custodial
sentence of several years on the Scottish mainland. Apparently, Johnny availed
himself of Peter’s incarceration and together with another man, Finn,3 took over
the heroin market [Gerry, C, 5, 37–45]. After Peter’s arrest, Johnny and Finn
ran the heroin business in Shetland in cooperation and – according to numerous
interviews – focussed on maximising financial gains and thus supply and demand.
The two are portrayed as having taken a distinctively more commercial and reckless
approach to heroin dealing than Peter and Johnny had before. Although Johnny’s
confederate Finn is repetitively mentioned by a number of participants, Johnny
receives by far the main attention and weight. The reason could either be his factual
dominance over Finn, or the two men’s division of roles. Concerning the latter,
Johnny is frequently depicted as having conducted most of the direct customer
work, whereas Finn may have concentrated on, for example, organisation, and
administration. In this case, users would have had significantly more contact with
Johnny while possibly not being aware of Finn’s work. This would explain why
interviewees tend to attribute the greater importance to him. However, it is not possible to identify the pair’s exact role allocation, and nor is it necessary in describing
the reported commercial expansion of the heroin scene.

8.5.2.3

The ‘Liverpool Connection’

It seems, from the accounts of those interviewees who state to have an insight
into the internal structures of the heroin scene, Johnny’s and Finn’s dealing
enterprise was embedded in an organised supply system based on the British
mainland. The two dealers are reported to have received most of the heroin they sold
in Shetland from a significant dealing network in Liverpool [e.g. Rick, C, 9, 2–19;
Christian, O, 13, 43–51], generally referred to as the Liverpool connection
[Gordon, C, 4, 46].
Below, the Shetlander Rick (C) describes the chain of events behind the
vastly increased heroin supply in Shetland. It seems that Johnny and the people
working with him realised the commercial potential of the heroin business on the
Shetland Islands and decided to expand the offer radically. Additionally, significant
Liverpudlian drug dealers had also recognised the financial possibilities of Shetland’s
drugs, and in particular heroin market. Subsequently, Rick explains, a regular
business relationship between the dealers in Shetland and the suppliers in Liverpool
developed. This connection was, according to Rick and other participants, strongly
dominated by the Liverpudlians, according to whose rules most of the business was
transacted. As a result of the connection between the big mainland suppliers and
the profit-oriented island dealers, Rick states, Shetland was flooded with heroin,
which Johnny and his confederate distributed fairly freely and without much

3

Name changed.

228

8

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

differentiation or restriction. Many participants support the notion that for a while
the entire heroin using population on the island was provided by virtually two
persons.
R: Sorry what?… You said, that it started to change [in 2000]? In which way? And how did
it become more available and
Rick (C): Because certain people were startin’ to see how much profit was in it. An’, ah,
took advantage of tha’. An’ certain people tha’ worked in bigger organisations South had
seen this place as a little gold mine. So they really flooded the place for quite a while.
R: So it was not, um Shetlanders who actually supplied
Rick: No, no, it was all, mainly fae Liverpool. Bu’ i’ wis the guys like up here tha’ were
really apt, ken? The wide availability to everybody was really doon to a couple o’ individuals
really. They were Shetland boys, they were really just puppets bu’ the guys were pullin’ all
the strings on. […]
R: Yeah, it’s strange it was just ONE person, who supplied the whole of the island, isn’t it?
Rick: Pretty much, yeah. [1, 36–2, 8]

On the basis of the developments described above, the availability of heroin in
Shetland appears to have progressed from its previous strict limitations and intermittence to ‘constant supply’ [Gerry, C, 2, 39–40].

8.5.3

Availability of Heroin: Wholesale Supply

The term ‘commercial peak’ seems to reflect the core aspects of the Shetland heroin
scene’s character under Johnny and Finn, as will now be illustrated. Interviewees
provide several expressive, punchy terms to communicate the extent to which heroin
became available, especially in contrast with the previous stringent restrictions. One
participant describes the availability of heroin once Johnny exerted his influence on
the Shetland market as wholesale [Gerry, C, 3, 11–15].
Gerry (C): […] And once [Johnny] came on the scene, how can I say, he started kinda,
pretty much wholesale, yeah. Dealin’ in large quantities. Regularly. As I say, there was a,
there was a permanent supply. [3, 11–15]

With her statement ‘someone brought heroin in bulk to the island’, the occasional
user Kay similarly associates Johnny’s mass marketing approach to heroin dealing
[1, 13–19]. Yet another interviewee explicitly refers to the manner of dealing during
the period Johnny and Finn were in charge of the heroin market as commercial
[Philip, N, 15, 10]. Speaking about the apparently surprising and explosive turn, the
Shetland heroin supply had taken through specifically Johnny, the long-term using
Shetlander Rick remarks that with respect to substance use ‘this island’s capable of
anything, just about every excessive peak’. Even though he had seen the heroin
scene’s rapid expansion as remarkable, he claims not to be surprised by recent
developments, since Shetland ‘is just a mad place’ [2, 26–46] in terms of substance
abuse. Hence, the commercial peak phase that heroin supply and use are reported to
have entered in 2001 might have resulted from a combination of Shetland’s general
cultural make-up, the national/global drug trend, and the specific conditions of the

8.5

The Commercial Peak: Flood Gates Opened

229

scene’s internal structure at the time. In addition to the common openness towards
excessive substance use and specific personal circumstances, other factors are
claimed to have contributed to the subculture’s commercial expansion. These will
be expounded after the following section concerned with the quality and price of
heroin in Shetland during the era of the commercial peak. According to participant
accounts, this era lasted for approximately 3 years until the beginning of 2004, when
certain incidents caused the scene to once again fundamentally change. The aim
at this point is to provide a brief overview of the period’s character and duration.
The related events, as well as their interdependencies, will not be further discussed
now. They will be elaborated later on in correspondence with the chronological
order of events.

8.5.4

Quality and Price

Interviewed heroin users generally agree that the overall quality of heroin in Shetland
declined significantly as its availability increased [e.g. Rick, C, 9, 2–19; Mona, C,
2, 30–47; Philip, N, 15, 37–40; Duncan, N, 10, 49–11, 12]. Interview accounts
suggest a changeable and often poor potency during the period when the drug was
freely available.
Rick (C): […] An’ the quality o’ it, ken, it was hit or miss, ken? So many times i’ was just
ssshhhit, you know? Wastin’ your money. Placebo effect, ken, half the deals you were
gettin’ like. [12, 41–43]

However, despite the low quality of the opiate, demand and sales seem to have
been great. The unpredictability of obtaining good-quality heroin on a given occasion
might have had an operant conditioning effect: Rewards at variable intervals could
have contributed to upholding consumers’ motivation to purchase. Besides, many users
probably saw no way of getting hold of heroin on the island other than consulting
the local dealers.
Even though the heroin quality seems to have degenerated noticeably with the
increase in availability, the price never seems to have changed. According to interviewees, it remained stable at 100 GBP/g throughout the subculture’s various stages
[e.g. Mona, C, 4, 5–15]. The rationale behind keeping heroin at a comparatively
high cost – according to interviewees, nearly twice the price as in urban Britain – and
low quality is explained in terms of commercial greed. The Shetlander Patrick (C)
clarifies that in order to maximise the profit from the heroin trade, dealers diluted
the drug they intended to sell with cheaper adulterants, the result being heroin of
a variably lower potency. Combined with the vastly increased demand, Patrick
explains, the surplus value was enormously multiplied [3, 43–4, 2]. The Shetland man
Philip (N) adds that due to the drug’s generally low quality, people with physical
addictions had to buy three, four, five times as much heroin as they would have had
to in urban areas, thus further increasing the dealers’ profit [15, 37–40]. Johnny
and Finn’s dealing monopoly probably also assisted the stability of the growing

230

8

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

turnover, as most users seem to have preferred these comparatively adverse
conditions over the risk and efforts involved in organising their own heroin from the
mainland [cf. Mona, C, 2, 30–47].
In line with Patrick’s and Philip’s arguments, Rick (C) points out that Peter’s
arrest, Johnny and Finn’s takeover of the heroin market and the establishment of
the Liverpool connection together were responsible for the considerable decline in
heroin quality [7, 18–25]. Rick believes that the drop in quality was also attributable
to the break-up of the circle of original old school users. The disintegration of this
clique towards the end of 2001 has also been mentioned by other former group
members [e.g. Gordon, C, 4, 10–35]. This circle seems to have operated closely
with the previous drug seller Peter during the contained commercialisation and thus
had an influence on the extent, style and quality of the heroin supply. However,
besides Rick, others also confirm that the well-established Liverpudlian suppliers
managed to completely dominate the supply level of the Shetland heroin trade during
the commercial peak [e.g. Duncan, N, 10, 49–11, 9]. Hence, the two Shetlanders
Johnny and Finn were frequently sold heroin not viable in the more competitive
marketplace of urban Britain due to its poor quality. In Shetland, with its extremely
limited means of obtaining heroin and resultant dependence on dealers, the situation
was fundamentally different.
R: Ah right, right. And the other ones, what, the other ones didn’t
Rick (C): Well, he, the guy, the guy that was doin’ it [Peter], ken, he he took, he got time.
And that’s how the [old school] circle go’ shut doon. An’ that’s, that’s when i’ was at its
worst for me, because, like, in 2002 I was bein’ investigated too much by the police. An’ I got
busted an’ stuff, bu’ I never got anythin’. Never really wanted to do, ken, I was just gettin’
bits for meself through this little group. And once that chap [Peter] went away, these new
people [Johnny and Finn] came up an’ the Scousers sent in all the shit that couldnae be sold
in Liverpool, so i’ was probably thrown in the mail an’ they could try to sell i’, they were
just sendin’ i’ up here. An’ i’ was really pretty low quality. Be lucky if some o’ it was 10%,
I would say. And really, some o’ it was really badly cut. I’d say 2002 it was just totally flood
gates opened an’ everybody was startin’ to just aboot, i’ was available for just aboot
every- and anybody. [9, 2–19]

The mainlander Duncan (N), who had been involved in the Shetland heroin
scene for a long time, believes the two Shetland dealers carried out business in a
rather naïve, commercially inept manner [10, 49–11, 12]. Besides greed on the part
of Johnny and Finn, he explains, the poor quality of the heroin sold during the
commercial peak was also determined by the nature of the business relationship
between the Shetland dealers and the mainland suppliers. Apparently, the latter
took advantage out of the islanders’ lack of experience, professionalism and supply
alternatives, regularly selling them drugs of low quality.
Duncan (N): […] An’ they started to STUPIDLY bring up God all knows wha’. I think, the
people at the other end, like had like little or no respect for them. So they would sell them
crap. [10, 52–11, 2]

It has been suggested that if someone commercially motivated, intelligent and
knowledgeable were to apply themselves to the heroin trade in Shetland, they could
be enormously successful. Under such circumstances, the extent and intensity of

8.5

The Commercial Peak: Flood Gates Opened

231

heroin use on the island could escalate even further than it had during Johnny and
Finn’s time [Christian, O, 2, 32–33].
Some participants argue that the decline in heroin quality also resulted from the
increase in the number of people involved in dealing as well as from the ongoing
arrests of local dealers [Rick, C, 7, 35–41; Mona, C, 2, 30–47]. In this context,
Duncan, (N), a member of the former old school group, criticises the short-sighted
commercial orientation and ignorance of control norms evident in modern dealers
[11, 23–42].
The decline in heroin quality during the period of the commercial peak seems to
rely on a combination of different factors. The two main dealers, and possibly their
associates, appear to have generally acted according to the principle of maximising
profit. This involved bringing up and selling large quantities of heroin to a wide
clientele and regularly adulterating the drug with cheaper cutting agents in order to
increase the supply, thereby taking advantage of their monopoly in Shetland. In turn,
the dealers themselves were reportedly taken advantage of by their urban suppliers,
who sold them low-grade heroin not suitable for a competitive urban marketplace.
The high turnover of dealers on the island, thanks to frequent arrests, may also have
contributed to the declining quality of the opiate. The repeated detentions have
been associated with the relaxation of strict control norms concerning heroin supply
and use.

8.5.5

Growing Accessibility and Loosening of Control

Drawing on various accounts, the commercial peak reached its heyday in 2002. By
using the metaphor ‘2002 it was just totally flood gates opened’, Rick (C) cited
above suggests that by this time, the previously strict regulations ceased to exert
effective control over heroin supply and use. In the beginning of his interview, the
Shetlander explains that, ‘when it started getting far more available, the control of
all that comes to be let go’ [1, 15–17]. This loss of control he outlines further by
emphasising that after the flood gates opened ‘everybody’ started to use and the
drug became ‘available for just about every – and anybody’. Not only the amounts
of heroin on offer but the number of people in a position to access the drug increased
exponentially. The discontinuation of the stringent access limitations has repeatedly
been associated with serious problems.
Rick (C): […] Bu’, yeah, it’s become far too available up here at some points, ken. There
was when really every man, wife an’ his dog, ken, could ge’ a hold of it an’ that’s problematic,
an’ i’ started to ge’ really…, yeah, an’ go’ a lo’ worse. […] [1, 12–15]

Participants describe a variety of problematic features. Firstly – as already
mentioned – the addiction rates grew overall. Moreover, with the free availability,
young people previously excluded from the heroin scene were now able to access
the drug. They are reported to have consequently become affected by the general
rise in addiction [Kay, O, 1, 13–19].

232

8

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

Along with Rick, a considerable proportion of interviewees describe a general
loss of control in the island’s heroin subculture. Several users, such as the young
Shetlander Justin (C), point out that the scene was ‘getting out of hand’ over the
past few years. Justin explains that heroin became ‘far too accessible’ for the
subculture to still be manageable. The young man explains that, due to the erosion of
access restrictions, many people found out about the availability of heroin, became
interested, tried it and continued to use. As a result, both the secrecy and the general
controllability of the scene were significantly reduced [4, 6–21].
Gordon (C), also speaking about the scene having gotten out of hand, attributes
this loss of control specifically to Johnny’s profit-oriented demeanour. In his and other
participants’ eyes, the supply expansion to youngsters constitutes a fundamental
and serious problem. As a member of the original old school group, Gordon had
presumably been involved in heroin supply before, during, and possibly after Peter’s
time. He compares Johnny’s approach with the traditional supply ethics and norms
of his former group and underlines that he and his clique would consciously have
prevented young people from gaining access to heroin. On the whole, they would
only have sold to ‘older, established addicts’, people known as experienced heroin
users who could handle the drug with caution and responsibility.
Gordon (C): No. I’ really go’ outta hand 2 years ago or last year, when [Johnny] started
supplyin’. Because he introduced it to kids an’ that, which is not the way that we would
have done it. We always kept it away fae the younger ones and it was only older established
addicts that got it. […] [4, 10–13]

In sharp contrast with his own and his group’s conscientious dealing ethics, he
presents Johnny’s reckless and short-sighted profit-oriented approach. Being in his
mid-20s and therefore relatively young himself, Johnny might not have been
sufficiently mature to consider the potentially far-reaching consequences of relaxing
the previously strictly reinforced control rules. Hence, he might have been oblivious
to the possible risks of unconstrained profit-making. Otherwise, he might have
purposefully decided to prioritise profit over caution. Anyhow, with his lack of
watchfulness and care, many interviewees regard Johnny as having brought about
the Shetland heroin scene’s fundamental loss of control.
R:… Yeah. And, um, can you describe a little bit more this getting out of hand? The way,
what what was it like then 2002?
Gordon (C): Aaaah, [Johnny] had kinna parties at his old wife’s hoose an’ his girlfriend
was only a teenager and her friends came to these parties and he offered them a wee bit a’
heroin. And that’s how it got oot a’ hand.
R: Hm-m. And did he that to deliberately make profit?
Gordon: Yeah. To get more punters to buy it.
R: Yeah. Hm-m. And was he, he wasn’t the only one, who was supplying, but he was the
main one… ?
Gordon: Well, he was in this kinna partnership with this other bloke up here [Finn] […]
[5, 1–18]

The almost unregulated access to heroin together with the dealers’ prioritisation
of commercial profit over responsible use, are presented as having caused unprecedented new conditions. These have already been shown to have resulted in a range
of different effects.

8.5

The Commercial Peak: Flood Gates Opened

8.5.6

233

Changes in the Number, Range and Diversity of Users

The discontinuation of the relatively stringent restrictions in governing access to
heroin has been presented as an essential change. As a consequence, numerous
participants name the expansion of heroin supply to young people. Whereas Johnny
himself and other people under the age of 25 would once have faced considerable
difficulties accessing heroin, the situation seems to have fundamentally changed,
with Johnny integrating teenagers into his circle of customers. Rick (C) confidently
underlines that absolutely n-o-t-h-i-n-g, neither social background, age, gender, social
relations, nor anything else, would have restricted people’s access to heroin during
the era of the commercial peak. Hence, with users up to 60 still being part of the scene
and purchasing heroin from Johnny, the age range, user numbers and diversity of
customers appears to have broadened considerably [14, 24–30]. The old school user
Duncan (N), who claims to have withdrawn himself significantly from the general
heroin scene, affirms that not only were kids as young as 14 purchasing heroin, but
that through them even younger children could get access to the drug [14, 13–21].
Apart from the striking increase in juvenile heroin users, interviewees repeatedly
point to the number of females having become involved in the hitherto strongly
male-dominated subculture.
Gerry (C) estimates the number of regular heroin users during the most commercial period to amount to about 200. He excludes occasional and casual users
from his estimation, referring only to people who consume at least every couple of
days [12, 4–30].

8.5.7

Problematic Tendencies Associated with the Rise
in Heroin Availability

8.5.7.1

Expansion to Kids

Many participants mention the expansion of heroin supply to school children and
teenagers as one of the most worrying developments of the commercial peak. However,
interviewees speak about juvenile heroin consumption with differing certainty. Some
claim to have heard of school kids using heroin and others assert little awareness of
this phenomenon. At any rate, most participants articulate serious concerns. On the
one hand, they regard youth as a major risk factor for handling and using drugs in a
careless, immature and dangerous manner. On the other hand, young people face the
risk of impinging negatively on their physical and psychological development when
using strong psychoactive substances. Experimenting with alcohol and drug use
from young age – amongst other things as part of the growing up process – is presented
as fairly widespread in Shetland. Heroin having to a certain extent become included
in this rite of passage is generally deemed problematic by interviewees.
On balance, it seems that access to heroin started to become easier for youngsters
when the opiate became more available during Peter’s time. This course seems to

234

8

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

have been pursued further once Johnny appeared on the scene and to have peaked
when Peter went to jail and Johnny and Finn took over the running of the heroin
market completely. Rick (C), a Shetlander in his mid-30s, explains that because
Johnny was only a teenager when he started using heroin himself, and was still
relatively young when he began to deal, he had no scruples about selling heroin to
underage persons. Rick suggests that the dealer regarded people from the age of 16
as able to assume personal responsibility for their drug consumption. As others, he
mentions that he heard about even younger adolescents being able to obtain heroin
through older friends or family members.
Rick (C): […] because one o’ the guys is only 24 just noo, I mean
R: The one who’s
Rick: Yeah. He got put away. An’ he was at it, ken, when he was 15. I think, he had his first
hit at 15 an’ he’s been at it for quite a while like. An’ I kinna think, he seemed to have this
idea that if somebody was over 16 it was okay, ken? Basically. Bu’ I heard rumours there’d
be 15 year olds an’ stuff, ken? Scorin’ through a brother or relative or someone like that,
ken? Which is really bad. [5, 14–25]

The differences in interviewees’ certainty about the extent of juvenile heroin use
may be explicable in terms of social contacts. As underlined by Duncan (N), in spite
of the overall reduced concealment of heroin-related conduct, most individuals –
including very young persons – still attempted to keep their heroin use as secret
as possible [14, 19–21]. Therefore, people without direct or indirect contacts to
youngsters through their private lives or work may have been relatively oblivious
to the nature and degree of substance abuse within youth scenes.
8.5.7.2

Increase Addiction

In the context of the amplified heroin demand and accessibility during the phase of
the commercial peak, virtually all participants speak of significantly increased
addiction rates amongst the Shetland heroin users. Several of the interviewed users
also affirm the rise in heroin dependence to have become progressively more visible
in the morbid physical appearance of especially regular, heavy users, one of them
being the old school user Duncan (N) quoted below.
Duncan: Well, because there was beginni’, there was more an’ more people beginnin’ to
appear. There was more an’ more people tha’ you could see obviously, you know, physically,
that they were obviously ge”in’ into more an’ more of a mess. […] [3, 33–36]

Furthermore, the growth and spread of heroin consumption are reported to have
been accompanied by a similar expansion of intravenous use and risky drug-taking
behaviour [e.g. Patrick, C, 1, 31–46; Hannah, C, 9, 29–40; Kay, O, 9, 28–10, 13].
8.5.7.3

Expansion of Intravenous, Hazardous Drug Use

The Shetlander Patrick (C) describes how, when in his mid-20s in the beginning
of 2000, he and his friends began using heroin by chasing the dragon [inhaling].

8.5

The Commercial Peak: Flood Gates Opened

235

He asserts that at that time everyone in his social circle who used heroin smoked the
drug: Nobody injected. Over the following few years, however, he observed the
proportion of injectors constantly growing. Always having remained a smoker,
he still knows more smokers than injectors, but he insists that intravenous drug use
is continuing to spread [1, 31–46].
While discussing the increase in risky drug consumption around the time of
the commercial peak, a few participants mention the simultaneous rise in fatal
emergencies related to illegal substance use. Whereas in former times no drug deaths
seem to have occurred, the rate has in the past few years risen to between none and
one per year. However, participant accounts point out that these lethal incidents tend
to happen as a result of both alcohol and opiate consumption – usually methadone,
and possibly other drugs on one occasion [e.g. Gerry, C, 4, 34–39]. Fatalities
resulting from the ingestion of heroin exclusively are not reported.
8.5.7.4

‘Disgraceful’ Formations of Intravenous Heroin Use

The two women Hannah (C) and Kay (O), although nearly 20 years apart in age,
provide similar accounts with respect to the intravenous drug use they watched and
were told about during the commercial peak. According to Hannah’s and other
interviewees’ reports, Johnny conducted many of his drug deals at a flat in Lerwick.
After their drug purchase, his customers would usually stay for a while in order to
minimise the conspicuousness of the illegal activities taking place behind closed
doors. These waiting times are portrayed as communal using sessions where
consumers of very different kinds came together. Hannah characterises such
get-togethers as ‘disgraceful’ and the flat as a ‘needle den’ [9, 29–40]. In her account
of the buying and using situations at the apartment, she indicates that the intensity
and extent of injecting were common in this era. The degree to which the conditions
she describes were seen firsthand or discovered through hearsay remains somewhat
unclear. However, she claims to have been deeply involved in the Shetland heroin
scene and intravenous drug use for many years and is presumably able to provide
profound information firsthand.
8.5.7.5

The Conjunction of Easy Availability and Personal Problems

Kay (O), almost 20 years older than Hannah, conveys a similar impression to her
young predecessor. She describes the same purchase and using situation at the flat,
which she had as a regular customer witnessed many times. She claims exclusively
to have smoked as route of administration, and to have used about twice a week,
however solely during the last few years of her using career that before was entirely
determined by very infrequent, occasional use. Hence, with respect to patterns of
drug use and related norms and behaviours, she had always felt dissociated from the
scene that assembled at this house. Apparently, she experienced moments of strong
dissonance when observing people injecting – sometimes into sites as dangerous as

236

8

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

their necks. Even though she expresses her strong disapproval, she acknowledges
that she was prepared to tolerate such behaviours in order to access her personal
heroin supply.
Kay: […] Ah, bu’ in the new group there were people injectin’. There was nobody, nobody
snortin’. Everybody was smokin’ an’ some of them were injectin’, too. In fact, you kno’,
when I look back at the environment that I was entering into to obtain heroin, some of these
things tha’ I was witnessing an’ acceptin’ were horrific. Well, some o’ them were injectin’
it intae their neck! An’ I remember thinkin’ ‘That’s crazy bu’, okay’, you kno’, ‘let them
carry on, it’s none o’ my business’. They would, I remember an argument goin’ on, aah,
abou’ which side o’ the neck do you inject i’ into? One side takes it right up tae yer brain
an’ I thought ‘That’s crazy! Absolutely crazy. Bu’ I still sat in the room when they were
doin’ it. [9, 28–10, 13]

In spite of her long heroin using history of around 20 years embedded in a stable
group of occasionally consuming, older friends, Kay describes shifting to this
group of regular heavy heroin users. As already explained when introducing her
using history in Sect. 3.1, due to a personal crisis, she had started to purchase the
drug herself – a practice which for reasons of self-protection she deliberately
avoided years before. Out of convenience, she began buying the drug from Johnny,
and thus agreed to the major concession of having to accept contact with him and
the circle surrounding him. As such, she was confronted with norms, rules and
behaviours to which she fundamentally objected. However, the benefit of alleviating
her emotional pain with heroin appears to have outweighed the cost of witnessing
conduct she considered morally unacceptable. She emphasises the significance of
heroin having become drastically more available to people not previously involved
in the island’s supply structures. Before, even if she would have tried, she would
have had considerable difficulties obtaining heroin in Shetland. However, through
the conjunction of her personal hardship and the easy availability, she now found
herself both motivated and almost effortlessly able to get hold of the opiate.
Consequently, she declares, she started consuming heroin to allay her suffering,
whereas before she aimed for a form of ‘sophisticated social relaxation’.
With regard to changing one’s patterns of heroin use due to the concurrence of
easy availability and personal crisis, Kay does not present an isolated case. Numerous
interviewees claim to have experienced similar circumstances. In general, many
participants speak about themselves and others as having started to use heroin, or
significantly increased their consumption, when the drug became easily accessible
[Oliver, O; Ben, N; Joanna, C; Gerry, C; Gordon, C; Rick, C; Patrick,
C; Justin, C; Oscar, C]. Of these users, a considerable number portray themselves
and others as having taken the opiate (temporarily) to cope with personal stress
[Oliver, O; Joanna, C; Ben, N; Patrick, C; Justin, C; Oscar, C]. Some claim to
have consumed previously for varying periods and to have only developed regular
or dependent patterns of use during the commercial peak. Others report to have
started using heroin at that time and fairly quickly engaged in addictive, harmful
use. Of those participants who originally moved to Shetland from urban Britain as
a countermeasure against their heroin addiction, most state to have fallen back into
dependent use for the duration of this period.

8.5

The Commercial Peak: Flood Gates Opened

237

On the whole, the interviews suggest that the combination of the increased
heroin availability and the seemingly reduced stigma led to a significant rise in user
numbers and overall use. Furthermore, heavy, regular using patterns appear to have
increased and to have become more extreme.

8.5.7.6

Transformations Within the Heroin Use-Related
Value System: Urban Tendencies?

In the preceding subsections, it has repeatedly been suggested that the growth of the
Shetland heroin scene was interwoven with changes in the value system surrounding
heroin use. Settings such as those described by, for example, Hannah and Kay
above are presented as having been rare and rather unacceptable in former times.
The same applies to uninhibited, hazardous, and especially intravenous heroin use,
which would previously have been disregarded as irresponsible by most. On the one
hand, heavy, intravenous heroin use may generally have become more tolerable. On
the other, a priority shift from social towards selfish, egotistical values may have
supported the establishment of what could be described as junkie manners.

Junkie Manners: From Social to Sordid
According to the occasional consumer Christian, with the massive increase in
heroin availability, users, and especially injectors, the scene started to take a new
course: The subculture underwent a relative transformation from generally social
to sordid standards. Rather than getting together in order to communally celebrate
and share a secretive, ritualised event in a friendly context, Christian explains,
many heavy users in particular started focussing on their personal profits and gains.
The scene developed a market-oriented ‘elbow capitalist’ character; whereas in the
past, the interviewee would not have spoken of a ‘scene’ as such but rather of friends
meeting in order to enjoy a hobby together [10, 19–50]. Christian characterises the
heroin use of the former times as a principally good, ethically desirable and socially
productive behaviour. Over time, it changed into an antisocial, selfish and dishonest
pursuit. In contrast to the earlier years, he asserts, the subculture developed the
potential to seriously damage its members as well as society in general.
Christian (O): […] Mainly because there’s more an’ more people tha’ that like people’s
friends and family getting’ into it. An’ then there’s people startin’ to inject it an’, ah, it’s
getting’ more an’ more sordid. It used to be kinna a reasonably sociable thing. But noo it’s
like like really sordid. From my opinion anyway.
R: Can you describe that a bit more? How it used to be more sociable and
Christian: Well, it used to be, ah, poeple phonin’ up ‘Hey! Come on, let’s ge’ a bi’ of
fuckin’ smack!’ - ‘Oh bloody hell! It’s been fuckin’ ages!’ A few people would turn up at
this guy’s hoose who’s the seller. In tha’ respect you’re jus’ like liable: ‘Fuckin’ hell, oh, oh,
oh!’ Bu’ i’ was a treat. An’, ah, it brought people together, if you want, for a be’‘er thing.
Ah, because i’ wasn’t regular, people kinna looked forward to it. It was like, ah, ‘Fuckin’
excellent!’, ken? It, you sat aroon’ wi’ like a few close friends. Bu’ you’d never really tell

238

8

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

anybody. It was a completely secretive thing, ken? Bu’ noo it’s it’s every month an’ it
started to turn to a market itself an’ you can get it a regular day an’, ah, people are also
rippin’ each other off an’ backbitin’ an’ cuttin’ i’ up wi’ shit an’ takin’ their own little cut
an’ things an’ sellin’ it on an’ creatin’ bad feelin’. An’ tha’ kinna, there’s lo’ o’, yeah, bad
feelin’ in the scene noo, whereas before it wasn’t really a scene. An’ i’ was every now an’
again tha’ somebody came across wi’ smack an’ it’d be a kinna o’ thump thing. Bu’ noo it’s
far from tha’. It turned pretty serious, as far as I’m concerned. [10, 30–50]

When interpreting Christian’s account, it may be advisable to trim the sharp
edges from both his descriptions of the somewhat glorified distant past and vilified
recent past. Nonetheless, his statement essentially and aptly encapsulates the
correlations between the expansion of the subculture and its altered mentality.
In addition to the causal conditions outlined by Christian, several other changing
impacts on heroin-related norms and behaviours are named.
Soothmoother Influence
In Sect. 3.1, the impact of Soothmoothers – British incomers – on the Shetland
culture, including its drug culture, have been outlined. This ‘Soothmoother influence’
appears to constitute a stereotype-driven explanation for generally undesirable social
phenomena. With respect to the island’s drug scene, and in particular with regard
to heroin, users from the south also seem to serve as scapegoats for problematic
developments. Still, from interviews, it seems the influence of heroin users from
primarily urban Britain is not entirely a myth. Incomers seem to exert noticeable
effects on the Shetland heroin scene’s character. Concerning the atmosphere and
mentality of the Shetland heroin subculture during the commercial peak, participants
frequently speak of an urban progression. To a certain degree, these tendencies may
be imported by urban incomers. Duncan (N), himself originating from a British city
and belonging to the old school clique, claims that lately more and more heroin
users have moved to Shetland, who previously have been incarcerated. These people,
he argues, have undergone prison socialisation, which they then introduced to the
island’s heroin scene. He identifies this prison-based culture on the basis of a specific
kind of gutter language familiar to him from his home city but not formerly common
in Shetland [8, 20–28]. According to Duncan, these urban incomers accumulate at
the Shetland drugs project [7, 18–47]. In several interviewees’ eyes, the motivation of
many urban heroin users to move to Shetland is to achieve a higher living standard
and to obtain methadone prescriptions more easily [e.g. Duncan, N, 7, 43–44].
Hence, these incomers might promote the view that they are in Shetland to take the
greatest possible advantage out of free social services.
R: And, but did you say that, um, like that a culture developed of people lying, I mean,
going to the drugs project and lying?
Duncan (N): Look, come on, there was, as soon as the thing opened there’s people goin’
in like that ‘Listen, I’ve go’ this big gigantic habit’, you know blablabla. Righ’, they’re
gonna try toge’ as much as they can. Certain doctors are wise enough to go like tha’ ‘Righ’,
we try out with that and see how it goes. We keep an eye on him and see, see how his
eyes goes.’ […] Now there’s five doctors in here [who prescribe methadone in Shetland],
you know?

8.5

The Commercial Peak: Flood Gates Opened

239

R: Hm-m. And can you, can you say a little bit about this, how that developed, like this, this
culture of people coming into the project and lying and what it is like today?
Duncan: There’s always been a bi’ of i’, but, you know, just because o’ the nature o’ the
place an’ tha’. Folk like tha’ got like […] [9, 12–30]

As has already been demonstrated in the previous section on the heroin scene’s
internal structure, the view of the spread of junkie manners being partly traceable to the
influence wielded by urban incomers is also shared by numerous other interviewees
[e.g. Ben, N, 15, 36–16, 15; Mona, C, 4, 29–34; Robin, C, 8, 10–39].
The ‘Prison Connection’
Duncan, quoted above, continues his report concerning harmful influences from the
mainland by explaining that a prison connection has started between Shetland and
the British mainland. This prison connection developed due to increasing numbers
of Shetlanders and mainlanders in Shetland being arrested for drug-related crimes
and given custodial sentences in mainland jails. There they would get in contact
with more criminally established urban drug users and dealers, who would provide
behavioural models. Once released from prison, the islanders would return home
with their newly acquired criminal knowledge and manners, which they thus
‘imported’ to the islands [7, 18–47; 8, 41–48].
R: No, but you were talking about those people coming in to Shetland.
Duncan: Right. There’s been, i’ is really been a prison connection tha’ started. More an’
more people ge’ sent down to prison as well, from here. Locals, tha’ were sent to jail for
their drug offences. Aah, there’s never assaults, robberies, anythin’ like tha’, because it’s
it’s nae very bright. It’s all drugs, it’ always drugs things. [8, 41–48]

Duncan regards the prison connection as the main reason why the heroin scene
‘exploded’. He explains that Johnny and some of the people who worked with
him had adopted ‘gangster’ and ‘hard men’ demeanours during their jail sentences.
Furthermore, they established business contacts with experienced dealers and
developed these contacts after being released from prison. Apparently, these contacts
constituted the Liverpool connection – the basis of Johnny and Finn’s supply system
[10, 31–47]. According to Duncan’s and others’ lines of argument, the prison connection was substantially involved in the spread of the junkie mentality introduced
in the previous and seventh chapter [e.g. Rick, C, 5, 12–15]. This mentality involves
the acceptance of, and engagement in, uninhibited heroin use as well as antisocial,
deceptive, criminal and violent behaviours. Duncan also believes that besides
providing criminal role models, the prison system increases anger and aggression
that in turn impacts adversely on the Shetland drug culture [13, 23–27].
8.5.7.7

Beginning of Drugs Crime

As a result of the antisocial tendencies just described, a first incident of drug-related
crime – a shop robbery – is reported to have taken place [Kay, N, 2, 25–30; Mark,
C, 3, 47–4, 4]. Although this occurrence might constitute a rather extreme and

240

8

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

isolated case, many interviewees speak of a change in the overall atmosphere of
the island heroin scene. According to Kay (O), the almost idyllic island character
of the subculture previously manifested itself in civilised norms and behaviours.
Now, she claims, the scene has lost its former innocence, which is partly illustrated
by the increasingly violent behaviour of certain subculture members [2, 24–30].
This loss of innocence seems to be associated with the influence of the ‘big
dealers from Liverpool’ and the exponential increase in the number and diversity
of people getting involved in the scene [e.g. Christian, O, 13, 43–51; Duncan, N,
12, 42–14, 21].

8.5.7.8

Rise in Hepatitis C

In addition to the behavioural and normative effects described above, the prison
connection has also been associated with the rise in blood-borne viruses, such
as hepatitis C. It has been explained that due to the impossibility of obtaining
needles legally, people in prison trend to share injecting equipment. Additionally,
many might prefer heroin over, for example, cannabis in order to avoid detection:
The former can only be proven for a few days whereas the latter is detectable
in the blood for several weeks [Duncan, N, 13, 14–27] . Besides the prison
connection, the influx of urban drug injectors already infected with hepatitis
C may be related to the spread of hepatitis C on the island. Other related
factors, including risky injection behaviours, have already extensively been
discussed before.

8.5.8

The Same Trend as on the British Mainland?

At the end of Chap. 2 on the features of the Shetland heroin scene, the changes
of the subculture in the past few years were briefly sketched. The direction of the
changes has already been described as commercial expansion. This spreading out
and extension of the scene to youngsters has been presented and discussed comprehensively in this and the prior section on the contained commercialisation. Previously,
several participants have been cited, who drew parallels between the heroin use
trend in overall Britain and Shetland [James, N, 2, 28–48; Duncan, N, 3, 6–37;
Angus, N, 11, 38–44]. Two of the quoted interviewees place the English and Scottish
transitions in the mid- and late 1980s, respectively [Angus, N, 11, 38–44; Duncan,
3, 6–37]. Several of the interviewed users argue that British drug use trends typically
reach Shetland with a time lag of about 10 or 15 years. According to the townsman
Duncan, such trends are observable not only on a national but also on a global
level [3, 6–9]. This argument relies on the assumption that the manifestations of the

8.5

The Commercial Peak: Flood Gates Opened

241

British trend proportionally decline the farther north one goes. Thus, as the most
northerly point of Britain, Shetland would be the last place to exhibit the national
tendencies in heroin use. It has been demonstrated throughout the section on the
commercial peak that the Shetland heroin scene experienced an obvious and pronounced commercial expansion at the beginning of the new millennium. This
progression could be described as relative urbanisation, and is reflected in an array
of similarities between the heroin scene in Shetland and scenes in British cities
referred to by participants. The attribute ‘relative’ refers to the location-specific
limitations the Shetland heroin culture’s urbanisation process was subjected to.
Although many participants emphasise the advent and spread of criminal tendencies
and destructive, addictive patterns of heroin use, these were never reported to ever
have reached a city extent. As outlined in Chaps. 2 and 3, a great proportion of
heroin users continued to finance their personal drug supply through paid work
rather than social benefits and criminal conduct. The small size of the island
community and the severe social stigma attached to deviant behaviours seemingly
caused most users to refrain from crime other than drug dealing. Moreover, although
the level of secrecy is reported to have dropped considerably with growing
commercialisation, the majority of heroin consumers still attempted to conceal all
heroin use and related activity from the general public. Subsequently, the island
subculture was not as open and conspicuous as heavily using factions in city subcultures are described. Neither has, as demonstrated in Chaps. 2 and 3, prostitution
gained a foothold on the islands beyond very minor incidents. No open sale of sex
has ever been reported at the time of the interviews. Nevertheless, the age of first
heroin use in Shetland appears to approach the Scottish average.
Synthesising these results, one can conclude that the global drug – and in this
case heroin – use trend principally materialises in Shetland with certain delays.
Still, numerous specific features of the setting also contribute to the eventual nature
of a specific drug scene. The location-specific factors fundamentally influencing
the heroin scene’s features, structure and relationship to the mainstream culture
may primarily be found in the island’s geographical isolation, the small size of its
population and the cultural propensity of its inhabitants towards experimental and
extreme substance abuse. These extraordinary circumstances have been identified as
causing physical restrictions in drug availability and both intensified stigmatisation
and social care. Moreover, they also provide the potential for extreme developments
regarding general patterns of substance use. Hence, deviant behaviours, such as
heroin use, criminal conduct and prostitution may either largely be prevented
or primarily take place in a very restricted, secretive underground style. On the one
hand, the global heroin use trend – including patterns of destructive, addictive
consumption – has to all appearances heavily impacted on the island heroin culture.
On the other hand, Shetland’s specific geographical, cultural and social characteristics
may have given the scene its final shape. The significance of Shetland’s setting also
becomes apparent when examining the subculture’s further developments after the
era of the commercial peak.

242

8

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

8.5.9

The Downfall of the Commercial Peak

8.5.9.1

Causal Conditions: Loss of Control

In the context of the drastically increased heroin availability discussed above,
several interviewees spoke about loss of control over the heroin scene.
Control – and its loss, respectively – seem to be essential for many interviewees
when characterising the subculture’s features and nature at a given point in time.
Control and unrestricted commercialisation appear to be mutually exclusive, as the
latter tends to only be achievable at the expense of the former. Control, as defined on
the basis of numerous interview accounts, entails the comprehensive secrecy of all
heroin use and trade-related activities towards uninvolved people and especially the
police. Furthermore, it embraces the dealers’ and distributors’ conscious curtailment
of the heroin quantities they put into circulation in order to inhibit the number of
users and the extent of severe addictions. Additionally, control concerns behavioural
prescriptions directly and indirectly concerned with the intake of the drug. These
include cautious and responsible using patterns and therefore the prevention of all
kinds of inhibited, dangerous and conspicuous opiate consumption. Principally, all
norms and rules that throughout this book have been referred to as old school value
system are applicable in the scope of the control conception. Hence, to briefly refresh
the central norms: no heroin should be sold to young and novice persons; injecting
in front of non-injectors should be avoided; an experienced injector should not assist
someone completely inexperienced and the amounts of heroin supplied should be
strictly limited in order to regulate adverse consequences potentially associated
with heroin use and trade. On the basis of interviews, maintaining control seems to
be a means of protection against arrest, social stigmatisation and exclusion, and
individual and social harm.
The preservation and continuation of these control norms and behaviours is frequently reported to have undergone a significant decline in the past years. The period
of contained commercialisation could be regarded as a preparation phase for the
subsequent commercial peak, during which the prioritisation of the formerly secretive,
communal and social norms has largely been replaced by commercial values.
Virtually all interviewees maintain that the epoch of the commercial peak came
to an end when Johnny was arrested at the beginning of 2004. Interview statements
suggest that he constituted the central point of the Shetland heroin scene for a good
3 years, from approximately the end of 2000 until early 2004. Although Finn
apparently continued to sell heroin for a while, his supplies are presented as having
been rather limited and of particularly low quality [e.g. Gordon, C, 5, 17–19].
The supply system of the commercial peak ostensibly began to break down with
Johnny’s departure from the scene.
Interviewees explain that the police had been monitoring the activities and
movements of Johnny, Finn and their confederates for a considerable length
of time before they finally managed to intervene successfully. The consequences of
Johnny’s arrest are generally described as having been extremely far-reaching, as
will be illustrated in the following.

8.6 The Current Fragmentation

8.6

243

The Current Fragmentation

8.6.1

Conditions Associated with Change: Increased
Police Intervention

8.6.1.1

The Heroin Scene Turns Underground

Virtually all interviewees describe the arrest and imprisonment of Johnny as
immensely influential for both the features and the internal structure of the Shetland
heroin scene. Speaking in retrospect, many present his seizure as the result of an intense,
target-oriented police operation. In the end, the police had sufficient evidence as
well as a suitable situation that allowed them to detain their long-standing suspect.
The originally urban participant Gerry (C), who has lived on the island for more
than a decade, claims never to have experienced a greater exertion of influence by
police on the drug scene. On one side, he explains, the police managed to arrest
the main heroin dealer and thus to annihilate the commercial heroin supply system.
On the other side, the interviewee argues, the police have driven the subculture
underground, which radically reduces their control possibilities. Out of fear of being
reported to or detected by the police, users were significantly more inclined than
before to consume their heroin alone – a practice that carries the risk of overdosing
without being discovered. To reduce the probability of being revealed as a heroin
user, Gerry argues, people would rather accept the danger of fatally overdosing
in isolation, which the participant describes as the ‘most dangerous downside’ to
opiate use [6, 1–42].
Other interviewees also emphasise the underground turn the scene has taken
since Johnny’s detention [e.g. Angus, N, 12, 33–35; Lilly, N, 13, 27]. The Shetlander
Angus (N) emphasises that due to the increased police activity, the scene has
adopted a very secretive nature, which is apparently necessary for the subculture
to survive.
Angus (N): […] It’s like the police are very hard on it as well up here at the moment. So
that’s pushed i’ more underground, you know. It’s very kinda quiet hushed, hushed an’
everything’s kept very secret, you know. But it has to be that way. [12, 33–36]

Although the scene’s overall detectability by the police appears to have reduced
significantly, interviewees’ estimates regarding the number of people continuing to
consume heroin diverge. Some claim that only a few people carry on using while
others suggest that there has been little impact on user numbers.
8.6.1.2

Cessation of Commercial Supply

The downfall of the big dealer Johnny and the associated termination of the
prior commercial heroin sale were significant events with major implications and
far-reaching effects. The significance of the topic will in the following be illustrated
by several concise citations.

244

8

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

Numerous participants expound the ways in which users largely have to organise
their heroin supply themselves since the disappearance of the main dealer Johnny.
Contrasting the previous with the current supply situation, the Shetlander Angus
points out that, whereas in commercial times kilos of heroin had been sold through
a supply system of several dealers at different levels, now only the odd person sells
measures of up to a few ounces [12, 51–13, 2]. As a consequence of currently
nobody daring to supply heroin ‘full-time’, the quantities of the drug overall
circulating on the islands are immensely reduced. Like numerous other interviewees,
the young Shetlander Patrick (C) states that with Johnny’s arrest, the regular and
virtually constant heroin supply of the commercial peak stopped and turned into
diverse, unspecific people supplying small amounts at irregular, scattered intervals.
R: And, um, is it [heroin] difficult to get?
Patrick (C): […] When one o’ the main guy’s been busted, […] um,… after that guy went
i’ kinda went awful quiet again. Noo i’ seems to maer… random patterns, seein’ people
with small amounts just turn up fae nowhere an’ have a peerie bit for a half a week or a
week an’ then nothin’. […] [2, 16–24]

A similar point is made by the Shetland man and occasional consumer Oliver.
He observes that after Johnny’s arrest, the overall subculture splintered. Instead of
one or two people trading large quantities of heroin, now more people are selling
smaller measures.
Oliver (O): […] Em, the, there was this other guy [Johnny] got, ah, they lifted him just after
Christmas [Christmas 2003]. […] Ah really, it’s, I’d say it’s just become more fragmented
now. There’s more people sellin’ smaller amounts rather than just one or two people selling
large amounts, know I mean? […] [5, 43–6, 42]

According to Angus, users can get access to very limited amounts sold on the
island drug market through personal contacts and conscious social networking.
Hence, without a full-time heroin dealer, someone socially less ‘well-connected’
may be significantly disadvantaged regarding the ability to obtain the drug.
Angus: […] There’s nobody really full-time seller pure heroin, ken. There’s, there’s nobody
doin’ that at the moment. That’s how you have to sor’ o’, you have your circle o’ people that
you knowin’ an’ out of that circle somebody’ll know somebody that’s go’ some, so that’s
how you manage to ge’ a bi’. Bu’ there’s no, not really one person that’s like sellin’ heroin
full-time I would say at the moment. Ken. [13, 9–13, 13]

Angus’ view is supported by the statements of others, such as the long-term user
Lilly (N). Although, Lilly seems well acquainted with the main heroin supply
structures, she claims as a mainlander to be disadvantaged by the cliquey, exclusive
style of dealing common on the island [13, 19–14, 27].
On balance, all participants agree with respect to the era of the commercial peak
having expired as a result of extensive and focussed police intervention. First, Peter
had been caught, and then Johnny. Most accounts argue that after the police
demonstrated their obvious power with two big arrests, the majority of people with
potential interests in dealing avoided involving themselves seriously in the heroin
trade. Those still prepared to sell the opiate would not exceed small-scale dealing in
order to limit the accompanying legal and social risks.

8.6 The Current Fragmentation

8.6.1.3

245

Dogs Against Drugs

Besides the drugs squad’s successful work concerning the break-up of commercial
heroin supply, several participants, such as the Shetland man Angus, point out the
significance of the two drug dogs that arrived on the island in deterring people from
dealing heroin. ‘Dogs Against Drugs’ is a community-led project and registered
Scottish charity that was founded in 2002 in response to the drug-induced death
of a Shetland boy.4 Their impact has been discussed fairly controversially. Some
interviewees believe the implementation of the project contributed notably to the
heroin scene’s downturn after Johnny’s arrest. They argue that many potential dealers
are discouraged from trading heroin out of fear of detection by the dogs [Angus, N,
12, 47–13, 13; Rick, C, 14, 14–22]. Others articulate quite the reverse, even encouraging the trade of heroin over, for example, cannabis. Due to its intense smell and
bulky appearance, cannabis would be considerably easier to detect for the dogs than
heroin [Duncan, C, 13, 34–37; Christian, O, 5, 22–48]. To other interviewees, the
charity has no critical effect on people’s decision whether to deal heroin or cannabis,
or whether to deal at all, since the dogs’ incompetence at detecting heroin is widely
known [Duncan, C, 14, 29–31; Oliver, O, 11, 3–22; Philip, N, 12, 51–13, 17].
Thus, to assess on the basis of the interviews whether drug dogs inhibit, further, or
in any sense influence the heroin trade remains difficult. Although a deterrent effect
for many users is likely, certain people still seem to decide in favour of trading
heroin rather than cannabis.

8.6.2

The Fragmentation of the Heroin Supply
and Using Network

8.6.2.1

Small-Scale Dealing

As indicated in the preceding subsection, due to police interference, the heroin
supply system experienced a fundamental reorganisation and restructuring. Even
though Johnny and Finn are generally presented as having operated as a team,
Johnny apparently covered all or most direct customer contacts. According to the
old school user Gordon, Johnny’s business partner still continues to sell heroin, but
in a very small-scale and clandestine way. Gordon speaks about Finn as ‘now
seeming to be at the corner of the market’, acting thoughtfully and cautiously from
there in order to avoid attracting public and police attention. Specifying the dealer’s
drug selection, the interviewee adds cannabis and occasionally cocaine to his usual
heroin supply [5, 45–6, 12]. Overall, the amounts of heroin circulating in Shetland
are presented as being reduced enormously [Angus, N, 12, 33–13, 13].

4

Also see http://www.dogsagainstdrugs.co.uk/

246

8.6.2.2

8

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

Small Group Supply: Return to the Original Cliquey Structure?

While interviewees state that limited amounts of the heroin circulating in Shetland
after Johnny’s detention are sold through small-scale dealing, the greater share
appears to be purchased individually or by groups. During the commercial peak, most
individual users and user groups tended to draw their personal heroin supply from
Johnny and Finn. As demonstrated above, a shift towards centralised supply is
described as having been clearly perceptible already during Peter’s dealing era.
This seems to have been intensified decisively during the commercial peak phase.
Many participants now observe a reverse development back to the original small
group supply system, under which the bulk of the scene appears to have been
organised until the advent of Peter’s, and in particular Johnny and Finn’s, business.
Above, the occasional user Oliver has been cited applying the term ‘fragmented’
to characterise the scene’s present state, which appears to appropriately reflect the
subculture’s social structure. Therefore, this recently commenced and still ongoing
stage will from now on be designated ‘the current fragmentation’.
From Gerry’s (C) interview, it becomes obvious that the mainlander has
witnessed the island heroin scene throughout, at least, the era of the old school, the
contained commercialisation and the commercial peak, and now observes the occurrences of the present phase. He gives extensive details of how the subculture’s internal
structure fragmented and shifted back to its original small group structure. He claims
to know a lot of people who now arrange for their heroin by personally travelling to
the urban mainland and returning with a few grams solely for themselves and their
immediate user circle. He stresses the reversion to the secrecy with which the purchase
and consumption of heroin had previously been handled. He argues that people once
again exercise intensified concealment, to preserve their limited gains for themselves
and their friends and to avoid attracting public or police attention [6, 1–42].
Other participants, such as the Shetland woman Mona (C), provide very similar
accounts of both the fragmentation of the heroin supply and the overall scene.
She describes how hard it can be to obtain small amounts of heroin nowadays, with
no commercial dealer there to satisfy the demand. In line with numerous other
participants – including Gerry, indirectly cited above – she explains that access to
heroin can only be gained reliably if one either personally travels to the mainland
to buy it or is socially connected with a person willing to accept the risk of bringing
it back to Shetland. Other than that, the drug can only be obtained in the occasional,
almost accidental event of finding people with bits to sell. Even for this social contacts are necessary.
R: And what is it like just now?
Mona (C): […] But now it’s… I ‘ink it’s maer like everybody’s is getting’ their own little
bi’ an’ keepin’ it to a small group o’ people… There’s nae like… it’s very difficult to ge’
hold of noo, unless you’re doin’ I’ yourself or you know somebody who’s willin’ to take the
risk go down an’ get some an’ share some wi’ their circle o’ friends.
R: […] And is it difficult for you these days to, to get it, or…?
Mona: Maybe… maybe jus’ once every now an’ again, if somebody’s go’ a bit an’ they’re
sellin’ some of i’. Bu’ there’s nae… big time, there’s nae one person. So i’ is far maer
difficult to ge’ now. […] [2, 49–3, 19]

8.6 The Current Fragmentation

247

Interviewees describe the structure of the Shetland heroin scene as always – and
in particular before its commercialisation – having been of decisively cliquier nature
than typical urban scenes. Cliquey, as already explained in the foregoing section
on the subculture’s internal structure, embraces the building of relatively small
social groups or cliques that to differing degrees mutually exclude each other.
While excluding outsiders, members of one clique are inclined to treat each other
with friendliness and care, and to share a communal spirit that has previously
been designated as community-mindedness. The degree of friendliness, care and
community-mindedness is likely to differ between cliques. As frequently reported,
during the period of contained commercialisation and especially the commercial
peak the majority of users tended to purchase their heroin from the main dealers and
their confederates. Through the dominance of the centralised supply, the cliquey
structure and general community-minded attitude ostensibly lost influence: Most
people did not have to organise themselves anymore and consequently no longer
depended on each other in the way they previously had. Nonetheless, an uncertain
number of groups and circles are stated to have continued organising their own
demands even throughout the commercial peak. In spite of the apparent continuation
of an uncertain number of user circles during the commercial peak, there appears to
have been a general trend away from the cliquey network. As previously mentioned,
at the flat in which Johnny usually conducted his deals, many users would typically
consume at least some of the heroin they had just bought together. It appears that
gatherings of relatively random people occurred. These people seem often to have
been brought together by the self-serving goal of obtaining drugs rather than by the
community-based attitude common in earlier times. However, with the cessation of
commercial heroin sale and the subsequent fragmentation of the scene, users appear
to have adapted to the new situation by resuming the original community-minded,
secretive style of heroin purchase and use, as articulated by, for example, the young
Shetland man Oscar (C) below.
Oscar (C): […] Bu’ it’s very hard to ge’ hold of in Shetland nowadays. So nowadays it’s
more like, it’d be a group o’ people, tha’ would just ge’ for themselves, it’s not for sale, it’s
just for themselves. […] [1, 7–10]

The pragmatic nature of such cliques is exemplified by the long-term using
Shetlander Angus (N) below, and has already been presented and discussed in detail
in Sect. 3.2.
Angus (N): […] Well, it’s certainly becomin’ more an’ more like cliquier. You know, littler
groups o’ people gettin’ bits. Like a few people will chip in money, one person will go
South an’ take maybe a half ounce or an ounce an’ tha’ just gets shared among small group.
An’ they keep i’ very quiet. [5, 13–17]

Throughout the early days and the era of the old school, the social network of the
Shetland heroin scene seems to have been primarily determined by small and smallish
user groups of friends and mates. As demonstrated before, these cliques are depicted
as cooperating in the acquisition of heroin. The drug would be subdivided between
the clique members and often also consumed within the scope of the clique. During
the period of contained commercialisation, and above all the commercial peak, a

248

8

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

propensity towards individualised and self-serving heroin purchase and consumption
had become apparent that presumably was closely connected with the introduction
of a centralised supply system. Despite the overall trend, many of the original user
groups may still have consumed together, and some seemingly have carried on
purchasing their heroin personally from the mainland.
To all appearances, the Shetland heroin scene underwent a major transformation
and restructuring process after Johnny’s arrest. Interviewees state that through fear
of being caught by the police, everyone using, and especially selling, heroin reacted
by dramatically increasing the level of secrecy with which they engaged in heroinrelated activities.
The overall fragmentation and underground shift of both heroin supply and use
constitute the chief outcomes of the changes outlined by participants. In this context,
most interviewed users characterise the alteration process as a return to the original
small group network.

8.6.3

Availability and Accessibility

8.6.3.1

Effects on Extent of Use and Levels of Addiction

Following from the previous section, interviewees present the dramatic decline in
heroin availability as the most prominent consequence of the changes within the
subculture. As mentioned before, the overall quantity of heroin being brought into
circulation in Shetland had dropped significantly with the cessation of large-scale
commercial activity. With regard to the total number of people continuing to use
the drug after the commercial peak, participants’ statements differ. According to
some of the interviewed users, the termination of commercial supply complicated
access to the opiate, which caused a substantial proportion of consumers to stop
using. Others argue that the overall fragmentation of the scene had a noticeable
impact on the amount of heroin on the island rather than on the actual number of
users. The former heavy user Philip (N) asserts that ‘the people that want it, are
sorting themselves out, are organising for themselves’ and that in spite of no one
supplying commercially at the moment, ‘the people that are going to do it, are doing
it’. They do so very secretively ‘without anyone noticing unless they get busted by
the police’ [12, 20–29]. In summary, the interviewee argues that people who really
want to use heroin will somehow find an unobtrusive way to do it.
Regarding addictive, destructive patterns of heroin use, most of the interviewed
users agree that there has been a perceptible decline. Various participants describe
the recently limited heroin availability as generally beneficial and a desirable
regulator. In this respect, a difference can be observed between occasional, casual
and regular, heavy users. Due to their infrequent, irregular, and therefore very
limited need for heroin, the former might not feel the situation to have changed
substantially. For the latter, however, of whom many are physically dependent, the

8.6 The Current Fragmentation

249

circumstances will have changed fundamentally. Despite expressing ambivalence,
those interviewees apparently belonging to the latter group still tend to characterise
the current conditions as largely advantageous. Their ambivalence appears to
consist of, on the one hand, the intellectual assessment that smaller amounts of
heroin being sold in a less commercial style facilitate the maintenance of a controllable and socially oriented subculture. On the other hand, they probably feel
confronted with the craving to consume heroin that, by and large, cannot be satisfied,
as well as withdrawal symptoms. Thus, they presumably also feel frustration and
dissonance.
This predicament is exemplified by the old school user Gerry (C). Above, the
user has been cited stating that the rate of drug deaths has risen in the past few
years. In his opinion, the current situation of fragmented, limited supply carries the
invaluable advantage of a reduced risk probability: If smaller quantities of heroin
are available under more complicated conditions, the chance of a fatal overdose is
automatically reduced. He contrasts this desirable state with the emotional anxiety
the market unreliability causes for him. From a reasonable point of view, he appears
to prefer the ‘safer’ situation, and from an emotional, impulsive perspective, he
seems to feel stressed by the paradox of ‘having to fight two battles at the one
time – fighting to control your habit and fighting to maintain it’. An additional reason
for preferring the current supply conditions might be the insight that keeping a habit
on a controllable level becomes easier if less heroin is available. Thus, he might
perceive the limited supply as helpful in assisting him to regulate his personal heroin
use and simultaneously resent being controlled externally. Against the background
of the past few years in particular, when he could easily and reliably obtain heroin
almost whenever he wanted, the feeling of being constrained in his freedom to make
decisions seems constrictive to him [4, 34–5, 6].
Similar views are articulated by other regular users who, according to their
accounts, developed partly severe degrees of physical and psychological addiction
during the commercial peak. All of the named interviewees express a similar
ambivalence as Gerry. Like him they often prefer restricted to widespread availability, because of the benefits of reducing their drug intake and improving their
health. Some of the regular users appear to be more annoyed and stressed by being
subjected to the external regulation than others. On balance, however, the interviews
show a tendency towards designating the externally imposed access limitation as
salvation or, as affirmed by Hannah (C), ‘saving grace’.
The young Shetland woman outlines in detail, how after the arrest of the main
supplier Johnny, access to heroin became extremely difficult, since she does
not have any contacts amongst the current small-scale heroin dealers. Consequently,
she claims to have found herself in a situation whereby access to heroin was
very hard or even nearly impossible. Her intention to reduce and finally stop her
previously regular, heavy intravenous heroin use was greatly facilitated by these
restraints. This way, she claims to have already managed to abstain for more than a
month, which due to the severity of her addiction, she might not have been able to
achieve during the easy availability of the commercial peak. However, in this new

250

8

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

situation, she claims to have been capable of overcoming the first overwhelming
desire for the drug and describes herself as not urgently wanting or needing it
anymore.
Hannah (C): […] So basically fae there an’ as well [Johnny] gettin’ busted, it got really
difficult for heroin to get to Shetland. Nobody wanted to do i’. [Johnny] was gone, the main
supplier sort of thing was gone. Uuummm, so i’ go’ really really difficult for it to come
here. So my heroin use was like really cut down an’ cut down an’ cut down an’ down really
really well. […]
R: When did you use it the last time?
Hannah: Uuumm, the last time I used was […] last month. Uuumm, the first week was a
n-i-g-h-t-m-a-r-e. I’ was like pure boredom, uuumm, an’ just time seemed to last forever.
An’ I was like so fed up the whole time when I wanted it, but because it’s really really
difficult now to get heroin up here, that was the saving grace, otherwise I think I probably
would have go’. Um, bu’ i’ seemed to be nearly impossible to ge’ heroin up here. You do
hear rumours that there’s bits an’ pieces, bu’ there’s really very little an’ it’s just about
impossible to get. So that’s saved me, I think, in the first week, because I think if I could
have gotten I would have. But I got through that. An’ then the actual, the actual cravin’
seemed to start to go away now, an’ I don’t really crave for i’, I don’ really want i’. The only
thing I find, I have no’ go’ any confidence, I’ve no’ go’ confidence to go ou’ much. […] And
the availability up here became really really like, it’s almost imp-, well, I would say today
it’s almost impossible to get heroin in Shetland. I know that there is people still bein’ on
heroin in Shetland. I don’t know who they are, bu’ I know people who can ge’. Um, ah, bu’
bein’ at the moment from wha’ I can tell, it’s been kept in a very small circle an’ it’s bein’
kept between very few people. Uuum, as far as I know there’s three people dealin’ i’ an’
they’re givin’ to so many people. Uuumm, bu’ I don’ know who they are an’ it’s jus’ like
really literally impossible to get, to get heroin. Which is actually been a bonus for me,
because otherwise I might have slipped back, I migh’ have gone back, I migh’ have fallen
back into i’, I don’ know. Bu’ I’ve really decided in my own head now, that I do not want,
umm, I want to live a life, I want to have a life an’ there’s no life when you’re takin’,
because your life is heroin. Your life is havin’ to have i’ to function, to do anythin’ an’ that’s
jus’ to me, I couldn’ handle i’ anymore, I don’ want i’ anymore. An’ I hate i’. [5, 39–6, 20;
6, 47–7, 13]

Numerous other, especially regular, heavy users provide similar accounts to
Hannah. Joanna (C), Angus (N), Ben (N), Lilly (N), Gordon (C), Rick (C),
Patrick (C), Justin (C) and Oscar (C) all describe how they developed worryingly
heavy and destructive patterns of heroin use while the drug was freely available, and
how their consumption has reduced enormously in the past few months. Hence, it
seems that many users, as described by Ben, ‘can get themselves habited when it
happens’ [when heroin becomes sufficiently available in Shetland] [N, 14, 32–34]
and will not otherwise. In other words, although a decisive proportion of heroin
users in Shetland seem to be prepared to purchase the drug themselves from the
British mainland, the amounts they bring back to Shetland are typically too small to
develop serious heroin habits. Moreover, the effort involved in travelling to Scotland
or England and the considerable risk of being caught when returning to Shetland
with the opiate appear to deter a large proportion of users from engaging in this kind
of endeavour. Therefore, both the extent and the intensity of heroin use taking place
in Shetland seem to be significantly related to, and determined by, the extent and
availability of the locally available heroin.

8.6 The Current Fragmentation

8.6.4

251

Quality of Heroin

Interview extracts have been presented stating that, through the fragmentation of
the scene, the quantities of heroin on offer and the frequency of its availability
diminished significantly. Additionally, participants mention that the quality of the
drug was substantially influenced by the reorganisation of the subculture’s internal
structure. The young Shetlander Oscar (C) provides a detailed account of the contrast
between heroin quality during the current fragmentation and the commercial peak.
He speaks of the Shetland heroin scene ‘dying’, by which he presumably refers to the
commercial side of the subculture and regards ‘the people who get for themselves’
as exceptions. According to Oscar cited below, the arrest and disappearance of the
two commercial dealers was desirable and beneficial. Explaining this statement, he
compares the conditions of buying from Johnny and his associates with purchasing
directly from mainland dealers. He describes obtaining the drug in Shetland as
decisively easier than having to travel to the mainland and take the risk of bringing
the opiate back to the island. In terms of safety and convenience, he and the friends
in his user circle had favoured the easier option at the cost of frequently poor-quality
heroin. According to the accounts of Oscar and others, the considerable quantities
of heroin commercially supplied in Shetland were usually brought up at intervals
rather than on a constant basis. Apparently, the purity of the drug on sale decreased
with time as the dealers repeatedly diluted it in order to maximise the financial
profit. Due to the lack of alternative sources, many customers tolerated this state
[e.g. Mona, C, 2, 30–47]. Oscar’s account almost conveys relief at his having to
organise his heroin supply again himself, since it results in significantly better drug
quality overall and thus more cost-efficient deals.
Oscar (C): […] But the drug scene in Shetland is dyin’ like. Especially heroin. Apart from
the people tha’ like get for themselves. There’s no dealers onymaer in Shetland, not for likes
of heroin an’ that. They’re all in jail. Which is a good thing, because they jus’ rip you off.
Like in my group - everybody gets wha’ they pay for, naebody gets done [get arrested], you
get what you pay for an’ it’s good like that.
R: And is it good quality?
Oscar: Yeah, it’s always good quality. The stuff you get in Shetland fae the dealers an’ tha’,
before they went to jail an’ that, i’ was always, ken, for the first week it would be okay, i’
would be good. Bu’ then after the first week i’ would get cut. An’ then after the second i’
would ge’ cut again. So slowly i’ would ge’ worse an’ worse an’ worse an’ worse. Like us,
we ge’ wha’ we get an’ doesnae ge’ cut. You get what you pay for an’ it’s always good.
Tha’ was the thing, they just ripped you off, the dealers. That’s why everybody had enough
of them. So.
R: So when the dealers were up you would buy from them rather than…
Oscar: Yeah, when the dealers were here we would buy from them bu’ we were constantly
getting’ ripped off. You were never getting’ wha’ you’d paid for, you were getting’
underweights an’ it’d be cut an’, ach, i’ was nae use! So really them goin’ to jail an’ all the
rest of it, although i’ makes i’ maer difficult for us to ge’ stuff, bu’ at least if we do get stuff,
it’s always good, well, we get what we pay for an’… likes of tha’. [5, 42–6, 22]

The Shetlander Philip (N) also asserts that when purchased by user cliques, the
heroin tends to be of better quality than when sold commercially [15, 37–48].

8

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

Fig. 8.1 Process model of the Shetland heroin scene

252

Reference

253

As Oscar describes in his interview, many people actively involved in the heroin
scene acted in a way that created circumstances allowing the commercial peak with
the sale of regularly weak heroin to happen. Moreover, the participant exemplifies
how, with the cessation of commercial supply, users found themselves having to
invest more initiative and action to obtain their private supply. As a consequence,
they may now be inclined to adopt a greater degree of responsibility and awareness
concerning their personal patterns of use. Other interviewees provide comparable
statements with respect to the high quality of the heroin that individual user groups
normally arrange for themselves.
As mentioned before, although the greater part of the heroin used on the island
at present appears to be obtained through small group supply, interviewees indicate
that some people continue to sell on a very restricted but still commercial basis.
The heroin dispensed in this fashion is generally depicted as being of the worst
quality. According to the Shetland man Patrick (C), a considerable amount of
heroin brought to Shetland some time ago had been of such low potency that many
users he knows, including himself, decided not to use at all rather than to waste their
money on something so useless [2, 34–40].
On balance, the interviews indicate that heroin being organised by user groups
and circles tends to be of mostly good quality. In contrast, the generally rather small
amounts of the opiate supplied by the remaining dealers are commonly described
as being of low purity, having been adulterated with cheaper cutting agents. Some
interviewees explain that sometimes one could be lucky and buy relatively pure
heroin from a local dealer. However, the likelihood is that dealers will have noticeably
diluted the drug in order to increase the financial profit of the small-scale business.
Before the current heroin trend in Shetland will be looked at closely in Chap. 6,
the historical course of the island heroin scene as portrayed in Chap. 5 is presented
in form of a process model shown by Fig. 8.1 above. The subculture’s developments
from the late 1970s until the time of the interviews in spring/summer 2004 are
illustrated graphically, including the particular conditions that contributed to the
initiation of the subculture and its progression from one era to the subsequent one,
respectively. Moreover, the duration and the central characteristics of the descriptive
features and the internal structure of each stage are depicted.

Reference
Lalander, P. (2003). Hooked on heroin: Drugs and drifters in a globalized world. Oxford/New York:
Berg/Oxford International Publishers.

Chapter 9

The Current Heroin-Using Trend in Shetland

9.1

No Heroin Problem at the Moment

Numerous interviewees assert that as a consequence of the dramatically reduced
heroin quantities circulating in Shetland, and the necessity for many users to organise their drug supply themselves, no heroin problem as such exists at the moment
[e.g. Joanna, C, 19, 19; Hannah, C, 10, 7–38; Philip, N, 12, 17–26; Ben, N, 14,
27–34]. This has also been implied above in the context of the reduced extent of
heroin use in general and addictive use in particular. Although all interviewees
effectively agree with respect to heroin use not constituting a noticeable problem at
present for either the community or most individuals, opinions differ regarding
potential future developments.
Hannah (C), for example, testifies that in her eyes ‘the problem with heroin is
getting cancelled out’. Still, she goes on to qualify her assertion by adding ‘unless
someone takes over and decides to do it in a big way again’. Although the momentary signs do not point to this being likely, she is conscious of the possibility that the
situation could become problematic again [10, 7–38].
The two Shetland men Philip (N) and Ben (N) express similar perceptions of the
present situation. They both assess the present condition as harmless, without
anyone being seriously habituated. Nonetheless, both men stress that this state
applies to the moment. They are aware of the possibility that things will change,
perhaps back towards commercial supply and thus destructive, dependent patterns
of use [Philip, 12, 17–26; Ben, 14, 27–34].

9.2

Further Spreading of Heroin Use

As has been demonstrated above, interviewees agree overall that at this time heroin
use in Shetland is not cause for individual and social concern. Yet, many emphasise
that their appraisal applies only to the present, and either directly or indirectly point

A. Stallwitz, The Role of Community-Mindedness in the Self-Regulation of Drug
Cultures: A Case Study from the Shetland Islands, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3861-4_9,
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

255

256

9

The Current Heroin-Using Trend in Shetland

to the possibility of the situation turning problematic again. Besides the momentary
status and tendencies of the Shetland heroin scene, several interviewees speak about
a long-term, general trend relatively independent of current events and developments. This overall trend, as portrayed by interviewees, concerns a still ongoing
increase in the demand for heroin, encouraging novices to start using. Against the
background of the subculture’s temporary condition as described by participants,
the notion of a movement towards growth and spread may at first seem contradictory. However, following from the interview analysis this trend ostensibly exhibits
both an overarching and underlying character. A few examples by different interviewees are given below.
The occasional user Oliver, for example, acknowledges the continuing existence
of a considerable number of recreational heroin users in Shetland. Nonetheless, he
observes, the overall proportion of addictive consuming ‘junkies’ is rising. He
points out that in spite of heroin use continuously expanding to a growing range of
people, and the number of people with dependent using patterns increasing, the
general public usually only notice the existence of heroin on the island when someone has been arrested with the opiate. Oliver concludes his statement by once again
underlining that heroin use in Shetland ‘is just c-o-n-s-t-a-n-t-l-y spreading the
whole time’, which he assesses as ‘not a good thing’ [8, 7–18].
Other participants state similar opinions, which seem equally detached from the
actual events and consequent user and dealer reactions perceptible within the heroin
scene. These developments are presumably related to the impact of the national or
even global heroin use trend as will be further illuminated below.

9.3

Further Spreading of Intravenous Use

In addition to the general trend to heroin use, an inclination towards injecting as a
preferred route of administration is illustrated depicted by interviewees.
The Shetland occasional consumer Christian confirms that he has never noticed
as many people injecting as now. With the current restriction of heroin availability
and the low quality, he explains, numerous users inject to enhance the potency of
the drug and stretch the supply. Like Oliver above, he points to the secrecy with
which intravenous drug use is frequently treated, especially since the arrest of
Johnny [2, 48–3, 9]. It has already been suggested that most people resumed the
curtailment of heroin use and trade-related behaviours.
The Shetland woman Hannah (C), who claims to have personally engaged in
heavy, intravenous heroin use until recently, expresses a similar view to her predecessor with respect to the further expansion of intravenous drug use. She claims that
injecting continues to take place to the same or even a greater extent as before, in
spite of the significant decline in the overall heroin consumed on the island. According
to Hannah, numerous ‘heroin addicts or ex-heroin addicts at the moment’ have now
started consuming speed, which, in contrast to heroin, remains easily available and
accessible. The general propensity to replace the opiate with amphetamines in times

9.4

Internal Structure: Impact of the Drug Use Trend on User Circles and Groups

257

of heroin drought has already been mentioned in the foregoing section [29–30, 32].
Like several other previously cited participants, she expresses her surprise about the
willingness of many heroin users to substitute a sedative with a stimulant. This apparent paradox leads her to the conclusion that a wide range of people injecting heroin
might be as attached to the intravenous route of administration as to the opiate itself
[9, 29–40].
The interview statements just cited or referred to suggest that two forces have an
effect on the features and character of the Shetland heroin scene: the national, or
possibly even global, drug trend and the local drug trend. The former seems to be
relatively detached from local occurrences, while the latter appears to be explicitly
determined by them. Accordingly, the drug culture’s general movement towards
heroin use on the one hand and injecting on the other could be ascribed to the
national or global trend. The current fragmentation as a consequence, in particular,
of Johnny’s arrest could be viewed as an example of the local trend. The concrete
and exact form at a given time resulting from the combination of both trends seems
to manifest itself in the location-specific peculiarities and characteristics of the
Shetland heroin scene.

9.4

Internal Structure: Impact of the Drug Use Trend
on User Circles and Groups

As has previously been mentioned, distinct individuals and user groups and circles
are very differently affected by the historical changes the Shetland heroin scene
has undergone. Some are portrayed as profoundly influenced in their patterns of
heroin use, whereas others appear largely independent. It seems that more regular,
heavy consumers in particular – including those who tend to develop addicted
states – adapt their styles of use and heroin-related activities to the subcultural
circumstances at a specific time. People with an infrequent, casual demand for
heroin presumably rely significantly less on the conditions of the heroin market,
since their patterns of consumption are unlikely to be motivated by habit or addiction but rather occasional desire for the pleasurable sensation of heroin intoxication. They might adapt to the circumstances and buy when the drug becomes
available in Shetland, or otherwise obtain their heroin supply directly from the
mainland. In this case, they would be completely self-sufficient and independent of
the local heroin market. However, people with frequent and severe patterns of use
tend to be deeply involved in the island heroin scene and to predominantly rely on
the local drug market. The organisation of personal heroin supply by either travelling to the mainland or arranging for the drug to be delivered to the island seem
feasible only to relatively limited degrees. Hence, heavier consumers exhibit a
strong inclination to involve themselves in the island heroin scene and market. If
they do not hold the position of a significant dealer, changes within the subculture
will more or less automatically have a noticeable effect on them and their using
routines.

258

9.4.1

9

The Current Heroin-Using Trend in Shetland

The Original Crew

In the preceding section, the circle of original heroin users in Shetland was
introduced. Members of this group are reported to have come to the island predominantly in the mid to late 1970s and early 1980s as oil workers or hippies.
Moreover, they are portrayed as always having adhered to social, moderate, and
responsible patterns of snorting and smoking use. It seems that this user group
tends to organise its heroin supply relatively independently from the general drug
market. According to Rick (C), a Shetland man in his mid-30s, members of the
original clique still maintain their typical rituals and patterns of occasional heroin
use. Some or even many might not be organised in the same group structure as in
the early days anymore, but seem nonetheless to have retained their conscientious
heroin-using values, norms, and behaviours. Rick assumes that these older people
primarily live in the countryside, away from the happenings of the mainstream
drug culture in Lerwick.
Rick (C): […] Bu’, um,…, ken, you’ve still go’ that up here, I think, like oot in the
countries an’ places like that wi’ older people, tha’ were maybe doin’ it in the 80s, ken?
Ken, when i’ was really really kept quiet an’ Sullom Voe was goin’ alang an’ stuff like tha’
an’ lo’ o’ people travellin’ up here an’ workin’, ken? A lo’ o’ that people are still, ken, will
ge’ little bits up an’ just keep it among very small amounts of people. An’ an’ it’s just gonna
be like really small amounts between two or three people, that’s it. [1, 20–28]

By and large, the original users are presented as practically immune to the status
of the heroin market. Since throughout the various stages of the heroin scene they
have apparently tended to organise their heroin supply by themselves, they might
only marginally have been affected by the diverse movements and changes in the
subculture. Therefore, it may be assumed that the original users are, in their style
and customs of use, comparatively insensitive to both the local and the national
trend. However, none of the old hippies or former oil workers described by participants has been interviewed personally, and all information about them has been
provided by third parties. Therefore, one cannot be sure to what degree the original
users might have adapted their intensity and frequency of heroin consumption to the
changing conditions. At times of heroin affluence, they might have bought additionally from the local dealers, which could have led to their use temporarily increasing.
Nonetheless, in comparison with other user circles they seem relatively detached
from the actual heroin scene.

9.4.2

The Old School Users

It seems that in contrast to the original users, the associates of the old school user
clique are relatively impressionable in their patterns of heroin use and that they
adapt these according to the conditions of the heroin scene and market. During the
commercial peak, most of the interviewed old school users apparently increased
and intensified their mainly intravenous heroin consumption more or less

9.4

Internal Structure: Impact of the Drug Use Trend on User Circles and Groups

259

significantly. After the end of this era, they all seem to have modified their use, and
particularly their intravenous use, significantly. Furthermore, the old school users
appear to adapt their behavioural norms somewhat to their using style at any given
time. It might be that the more intensive, frequent, and habitual their use becomes,
the more their priorities shift towards heroin-use-related personal profits. Hence, the
clearly defined and socially oriented old school value system repeatedly outlined
and referred to above might in certain respects be overruled by self-serving motivations resulting from heavy, habitual heroin consumption. An example of this is
Gordon’s revelation that when he became addicted himself during the commercial
peak, he started to sell indiscriminately, which he would not have done before
[2, 39–40]. In addition, Gerry (C) affirms to have temporarily relaxed his personal
rule about assisting novices with injecting [17, 40–49]. Both users present themselves as having more or less returned to their previously upheld social norms when
their heroin use reduced.
Hence, Gordon’s and Gerry’s accounts seem to exemplify the general inclination to adapt heroin-use-related norms and behaviours to the heroin scene’s and
market’s circumstances.
The two contrasting user circles of the original and the old school users have
been employed to exemplify the effects the changing Shetland heroin trend can
have on using styles and customs of local heroin users. It becomes apparent that
these effects can seemingly range from minor to very strong. The interview analysis
gives rise to the interpretation that between and beyond the two groups just pictured,
further nuances exist regarding the way people tend to adapt their fashion of heroin
consumption to their circumstances.

9.4.3

User Circles in General

In general, occasional and recreational users exhibit similar tendencies to the
original users in terms of their relative independence from the state of the island
heroin scene and market. Notwithstanding, it has been demonstrated that people
who introduce themselves as casual consumers still report sporadically having
gone through phases of more intense use at times when heroin was easily available.
This inclination appears to have become especially prevalent when interviewees
underwent difficult times in their lives, such as periods of personal hardship and
emotional stress (e.g. specifically described by Kay but also Oliver). It seems
likely that occasional users also slightly increase their use when heroin is abundant or otherwise particularly pure.
The same seems to apply to people consuming rather heavily in total. However,
their using patterns appear to be more susceptible not only to the respective changes
in the island drug market but also to a great variety of other influences, and could
therefore be regarded as relatively unstable over time.
Numerous interviewees affirm that during the commercial peak, many novices
who had no prior experience of the opiate started consuming heroin. When again the

260

9

The Current Heroin-Using Trend in Shetland

drug stopped being easily and freely available, many people ceased using. The
cessation might, however, be a temporary one, given the national movement towards
heroin use repeatedly pointed out before. On the basis of the interview data, this
movement might have an underlying, trendsetting nature that overarches the current
decline in heroin use.

9.5

Continuing Urbanisation?

Besides the persistent trend towards heroin use and intravenous drug consumption,
albeit restrained by the current fragmentation, interviewees describe ongoing
alterations of the local drug scene. The use of recreational drugs, such as cannabis,
ecstasy, and amphetamines, is claimed to have reached a relatively normalised status
amongst large parts of the Shetland community [e.g. Christian, O, 23, 1–3]. This
normalisation may also have increased the overall social acceptability of heroin
and hence decreased the inhibition threshold of recreational drug users to try out
the opiate.
The recreational drugs trade had seemingly undergone a commercialisation process from which heroin had initially been excluded. However, participants affirm
that with the growing acceptability of and demand for heroin, the opiate eventually
became subject to a similarly commercialised course. Some interviewees argue that
this naturally evolving development was further enforced by intensified police intervention. Cannabis tended to be more difficult to be brought into Shetland than
heroin: Due to its bulky appearance and strong odour, it was easier for police and
drug dogs to detect. Consequently, certain dealers were prone to trade in heroin
instead, since the opiate would not only be less easily traceable but it would also
bear the greater financial potential [e.g. Isaac, O, 14, 8–40]. From this perspective,
the implementation of the drug dogs and the police activity targeted at cannabis
traffic could be viewed as supporting the local drug scene’s movement towards
heroin and, furthermore, the commercialisation of its trade.
As outlined before, this commercialisation is depicted as being accompanied or
followed by changes in overall heroin use and the trade-related value system, respectively. Such changes include prioritising self-oriented over charitable values as well
as the pursuit of mercantile over social principles. These tendencies also appear to
be closely related to the underlying national trend just outlined. Thus, the much
reported return to the socially oriented small group structure after Johnny’s arrest
possibly merely puts these tendencies on temporary hold rather than stopping them
altogether. Among the ethical shifts also seems to be the expansion of a junkie mentality, including a strikingly selfish and partly dishonest and antisocial attitude and,
consequently, way of acting towards fellow users and the general public. In this
context, direct causal influences from criminal heroin scenes in urban Britain are
mentioned. Associations between local dealers and city suppliers, for instance the
Liverpool connection, are cited as promoting the importing of violent, criminal
manners into the island heroin scene [e.g. Christian, O, 13, 43–51]. The ‘importing
of urban manners into Shetland’ has been thoroughly scrutinised in Sect. 8.5.

9.6

Future Prognosis: Cessation of Commercial Supply or Recurrent Commercial Loops? 261

The just mentioned ethical and behavioural transformations within the Shetland
heroin scene appear to have begun during the period of contained commercialisation,
and progressed during the commercial peak. Strictly speaking, one could already
regard the era of the old school as quasi-preparatory for the subsequent contained
commercialisation and commercial peak. During this period, the organisation of the
heroin scene seems to have experienced its first supply regularisation and structuring
as an organised subculture. The old school circle is stated as having had the experience
of heavy, addicted, and intravenous patterns of heroin use before moving to Shetland.
Many appear to have occasionally resumed these styles of use at times when the
conditions of the heroin market allowed. Several fully returned to them during the
period of affluent availability, and intravenous use is reported to have always constituted the main route of administration in this group. Hence, the old school users may
be regarded as having initialised the subsequent course of the changes. The progressing alterations in the heroin scene’s general mentality and underlying value system
have already previously been referred to as urbanisation process.

9.6

Future Prognosis: Cessation of Commercial Supply
or Recurrent Commercial Loops?

When presenting interviewees’ views regarding the current conditions of the
Shetland heroin scene, virtually everyone talking about this matter assessed the
situation as fairly unproblematic. Although in this respect participants by and
large agree, estimations concerning future developments diverge. In the following, the main stances outlined by interviewees on this subject will be introduced
and exemplified by directly and indirectly presenting particularly substantial and
expressive interview extracts.
According to the townsman Robin (C), a long-term injector in his mid-30s,
the island heroin scene’s commercial heyday came to an abrupt and presumably
irreversible end after Johnny’s capture. He does not regard Johnny’s partner Finn
to be tough and courageous enough to continue the previous joint venture on his
own. People interviewed later than Robin report that Finn had just been caught by
the police, even though he had recently reduced his dealing activity to a minimum.
He had apparently been monitored by the drugs squad for a considerable period of
time, which provided the police with enough information to finally arrest him. In the
face of the intensified police activity, Robin doubts anybody will be sufficiently
reckless and adventurous to re-establish a ‘constant supply of heroin’ again. Instead,
he pictures the heroin subculture as progressively readopting its prior structure of
small group supply.
Robin (C): […] There’s a lo’ o’ people up here who grow their own hash. It’s go’ larger an’
larger in fact since theeee dogs have appeared. Bu’ I don’t think heroin will hit the island as
hard as wha’ i’ has done in the past there since tha’ boy [Johnny] go’ to jail.’Cos although
there was two o’ them, the other one [Finn] is no, no! I don’ think he could do a day in a police
station, never mind four years in, ah, prison system. So I really don’ think there’ll be a constant supply o’ heroin, on the island again. I think it’ll go back to the way i’ used to be – little

262

9

The Current Heroin-Using Trend in Shetland

cliques, you know, there’s maybe four or five o’ them an’ they’re puttin’ their money in
together an’ somebody’ll go doon on the boat an’ they’ll bring enough up for tha’ four or five
people. But I don’t think, unless somebody new’ll comes onto the island, bu’ I don’t think
there’s anyone up here tha’ will be willin’ to run the heroin the way i’ was run in the past. So
even at the moment everyone noticed the large increase in the CID an’ the drug squad that’s
on the island.
R: CID, what’s that?
Robin: Aaah, criminal investigation division.
R: Yeah.
Robin: And, ah, the drug squad, ah, when I first moved onto the island I never noticed them,
but now it’s every time I step onto the street they’re there. They really enforce i’ at the
moment. Because they’d go’ the boy there who was the main heroin dealer they’re tryin’ to
make sure, they’re puttin’ ou’ a message tha’ they’ll gonna be on top wi’ anybody that
thinks to follow in his shoes. [11, 7–37]

Robin presents Johnny’s imprisonment not only as the factual cessation of commercial heroin supply, but also as an example the police wanted to set by arresting
Shetland’s biggest dealer. He suggests that they wanted to demonstrate their power
in order to prevent people from resuming heroin dealing in a grand style. According
to his estimation, the deterrent effect will be strong enough to serve the function
intended by the police.
While some interviewees share Robin’s views, others are more doubtful about
the permanence of the deterrence following Johnny’s seizure. For example, the
Shetland man Angus (N), about the same age and with a similar drug-using history
as Robin, defends a contrary view. He argues that the current heroin drought will
not last long. After a while, he asserts, the heroin market will recover and return to
its previous size and commercial nature. He portrays the Shetland drug scene as
generally being characterised by arrest-induced interruptions and subsequent recoveries. Heroin, he maintains, does not constitute an exception. He explains that in
spite of the frequent arrests of people dealing different sorts of illicit substances, the
overall drug supply in Shetland has never been as great as at present. Although the
police manage to catch MDMA and amphetamine dealers on a fairly regular basis,
these two drugs are available in abundance at least every weekend. He expects a
similar development regarding heroin: Like all other drugs, ‘it’ll come and it’ll go’.
He regards the cliquey small group network of the drug subculture as permanently
coexisting alongside other styles of dealing that vary in their impact on the heroin
scene [13, 15–45].
The Shetland woman Mona (C), who claims to have been using heroin for a
comparable period of time, formulates a similar view as Angus. She breaks the interacting coherences down to the market principle of demand and supply. She explains
that due to the obvious demand for heroin in Shetland, someone will eventually
replace Johnny and begin selling the opiate on a large, commercial scale again.
Mona (C): […] Bu’ supply an’ demand, somebody’ll end up takin’, the last person who got
jailed replaced the person beforehand an’ the person beforehand, well, supply an’ demand
– somebody’ll start doin’ i’ again. [2, 49–3, 19]

The old school user Gordon (C) argues along the same lines as Mona. In addition, he illustrates the concrete relationship between the events surrounding

9.7 Conclusions Regarding the Future Course of the Heroin-Using Trend in Shetland

263

Johnny’s capture and the reactions of the heroin scene. He expresses the view that
the people involved in the subculture as users or dealers maintained low profiles
before Johnny’s court case, since over the course of the trial they perceived an
increased risk of being caught themselves. Gordon affirms emphatically that after
the dealer’s incarceration ends, people will regain their confidence and within a
short time re-establish a commercial heroin supply network. He reckons that within
a year the heroin scene will ‘end up at square one again’, as it did, for example,
when Peter was arrested [5, 28–40].
It has been demonstrated that predictions about future developments in the
Shetland heroin scene are fairly wide-ranging, from the belief that ‘the heroin
problem has now been cancelled out’ [Hannah, C, 10, 7–38] to the expectation of
a return to commercial heroin supply on as large a scale as before within a few
months [Gordon, C, 5, 28–40]. Despite the obvious variety in assessments of the
present situation, interview accounts on the whole show a tendency to predicting a
comeback of profit-oriented heroin business, which would suggest a dynamic pattern
of recurrent commercial loops.

9.7

Conclusions Regarding the Future Course
of the Heroin-Using Trend in Shetland

In spite of the current downturn of the overall heroin scene, a long-term, general
trend perceptible beyond and almost independent of the topical concrete events and
developments seems likely. As portrayed by interviewees, this apparently overarching trend is characterised by an ongoing increase in the demand for heroin, and a
growth of user numbers. A similar continuing increase and spread is reported with
respect to intravenous drug use.
Two categories of forces seem to impinge on the nature and character of the
Shetland heroin scene: the national/global drug use trend and the local occurrences.
The drug culture’s overall movement towards heroin use on the one hand, and injecting on the other hand, could be attributed to the national/global trend. The current
fragmentation of the scene as a result, in particular, of the young dealer’s arrest
could be viewed as an example of the local happenings. The concrete and exact state
of the scene resulting from the combination of the national and global drug trends
and the local incidents manifests itself in the location-specific peculiarities and
characteristics of the Shetland heroin scene at a given time.
Besides the continuing trend towards heroin use and intravenous drug consumption, an ongoing urbanisation of the local drug scene apparently took place. Along
with a relative normalisation, the increasingly acceptable recreational drug scene
had seemingly undergone a general commercialisation process. To all appearances,
both normalisation and commercialisation have extended at a later stage to the heroin scene. Furthermore, the urbanisation process also seems to embrace changes
within the overall heroin use and trade-related value system, manifested in a tendency towards prioritising self-serving over charitable values, and mercantile over

264

9

The Current Heroin-Using Trend in Shetland

social principles. Extreme manifestations of the urbanised mentality are represented
by the newly noticeable junkie tendencies.
Despite the current situation generally being assessed as unproblematic, a return
to big-scale commercial heroin supply might occur within a short period of time.
The heroin culture, as all drug cultures in Shetland, may thus be subject to dynamical patterns of recurrent commercial loops. In any case, further expansions of both
heroin and intravenous use seem probable and, according to the national drug use
trend, relatively predictable. This course could be further propelled by the incipient
economic recession in Shetland mentioned by several interviewees.

Chapter 10

The Community-Minded Spirit of the Shetland
Heroin Scene

10.1

Strength and Position of Community-Mindedness

The foregoing section on the internal organisation of the Shetland heroin scene
concludes with a summary of the scene mentality. The mentality of both the overall
Shetland community and the heroin scene appears to be determined and shaped to a
decisive extent by a general community-minded spirit. Throughout Part II, the
concept of community-mindedness progressively gained in theoretical depth and
expressiveness. This collective idea represents the central and superordinate category of this study to which all other essential categories and concepts are directly or
indirectly related. Therefore, community-mindedness constitutes the core category
that, in grounded theory, forms the centre point and heart of the emerged, developed
theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Strauss and Corbin 1998).
The strength and position of the community-mindedness spirit relies on a multilayered complexity of many mutually interacting, location-specific social, cultural,
economic, and geographic circumstances operating on the level of the community
(macro-social) and of the subculture (micro-social). These circumstances can be
referred to as the macro- and micro-social (cf. Cornejo 2007; Sect. 3.4.2, pp. 92–93)
structural particularities (Strauss and Corbin 1998; Sect. 3.4) of the Shetland heroin
scene and constitute a category that is closely connected to the core category of
community-mindedness. Crucial particularities on the macro-social level include the
geographical isolation, the small size of the island and the population, the relative
overall wealth, and the low levels of unemployment and crime. These conditions
seem to foster the development and preservation of the community-minded spirit on
the macro-social level of the Shetland community, which in turn impacts on the
micro-social level of the island heroin subculture. Central structural particularities
operating specifically on the micro-social level of the scene are drug use–related
norms, rules, and manners, which again are closely related to the type of users, and
especially dealers, actively involved in the scene. The level of community-mindedness
depends on and manifests itself in the prevailing drug use–related values and

A. Stallwitz, The Role of Community-Mindedness in the Self-Regulation of Drug
Cultures: A Case Study from the Shetland Islands, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3861-4_10,
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

265

266

10

The Community-Minded Spirit of the Shetland Heroin Scene

behavioural norms, which depend on the social structure of the subculture. The
social structure again is fundamentally influenced by the macro-social particularities. Hence, the macro- and micro-social particularities determine the degree of
community-mindedness that ultimately shapes the nature of both the features and
the internal structure of the island heroin subculture. These coherences have been
illustrated in Sects. 8.3 and 8.4 and graphically depicted by the structural model
displayed by Fig. 7.1.
Apart from being location-specific – in this case Shetland-specific – the macro- and
micro-social particularities are also time-specific and thereby subject to constant
historical change. Consequently, the subculture’s character, including its degree of
community-mindedness, and the respective values, norms, and manners are also
subject to continuous alteration, as presented in Sect. 8.5 and exemplified by the
process model presented by Fig. 8.1. Changes regarding the latter are primarily
initiated by behavioural norms and conduct imported to the Shetland Islands from
the British mainland. Such socio-ethical imports typically occur through Shetland
users who travel to and users who arrive from the mainland. From a historical
perspective, the reciprocally interactive subcultural changes become apparent as the
local drug trend. The Shetland drug (heroin) trend is hereby largely influenced by
the national (British and Scottish) and the global drug trend. Self-evidently, the
global and the national trends, again, depend on specific structural particularities on
the micro- and the macro-social level that are again subject to permanent historical
mutation. However, these causal entanglements are only touched upon here as
belonging to the broader framework within which the Shetland drug trend is embedded.
A detailed and analytic presentation and discussion the exact interrelations would
go beyond the focus and scope of this book.
In the following section, the position and strength of the subcultural communityminded spirit, the nature of the closely related, micro-social particularities, that is,
the heroin use- and trade-related values, norms, and rules, and their respective associations with the prevailing social structures within the five eras of the subculture
are depicted and discussed.

10.2

Community-Mindedness, the Overall Scene Mentality,
and the Supply Structures During the Five Eras of the
Shetland Heroin Scene

As thoroughly demonstrated and comprehensively discussed throughout Part II, the
idiosyncrasies of the Shetland heroin scene seem to be fundamentally associated
with its strong sense of community-mindedness in contrast to ‘typical urban heroin
scenes’. Although powerfully influential throughout most of the five phases of the
subculture, the degree to which this mentality characterises the outward appearance
and internal structure of the scene varies greatly from phase to phase. In this section,
the respective conditions of the community-minded spirit and of the most prevalent

10.2

Community-Mindedness, the Overall Scene Mentality…

267

micro-social particularities, that is, heroin using norms and rules, will be sketched.
Moreover, the position of both community-mindedness and particularities within
the general social and supply structures and the mentality of the subculture are
illuminated.

10.2.1

The Early Days

During the era of the early days, the social graces amongst heroin users are presented
as having principally been led by a communal and thus community-minded orientation.
As has been pointed out in interview citations, ‘the good old days’ of the heroin
subculture are likely to be tinted with a ‘golden shimmer’, that is, a certain glamorisation (cf. Sect. 8.2.5, pp. 204–205). Notwithstanding, from approximately the late
1970s until the late 1980s, norms of social care and respect seem to have dominated
the style in which heroin users and dealers in Shetland treated each other. Many
people using heroin during the early days apparently tended to prioritise the communal partaking in an ideational, ritualised experience. User groups and circles of
that time are described as having been chiefly based on warm social togetherness
and having consisted of an exclusive selection of friends or acquaintances as exemplified by the scene’s founding fathers, also known as the ‘original crew’. However,
variations are described regarding the specific atmosphere and superordinate ideals
aspired to by individual cliques during the occasionally held get-togethers. The
exclusiveness and specialness of these ceremony-like gatherings appear to have
been intensified or even determined by their infrequent occurrences.
The descriptions that Kay (O) gives of her group, which she participated in for
circa 20 years, convey an ambience of both playfulness and spirituality (e.g.
‘Christmas magic for adults’ or ‘Santa Claus project, p. 153). In contrast, the group,
which Oliver (O) apparently belonged to for an even longer period than Kay and
possibly still belongs to, is construed as being more focussed on philosophical and
intellectual endeavours (e.g. ‘ontological experiment, p. 154). These and also other
user cliques and circles started in the early days of the scene subsisted throughout
all specified scene stages and still subsist to the present day. Thus, the impression is
created that during the early days, the overall heroin subculture was pervaded by a
community-minded spirit that continues to live on in groups such as Oliver’s, which,
according to him, still exists, and Kay’s that she assumes disintegrated shortly before
her interview. Hence, within such groups of older users, the social and caring attitude has apparently persisted throughout all of the five phases and lives on virtually
unchanged until today (i.e. the point in time of the interviews).
Additionally to the insider depictions by Kay and Oliver, second-hand and hearsay accounts of other participants are provided about the original crew and other
user cliques of older socially well-integrated users that have existed for a long
time. On the whole, these interview passages suggest an array of values, behavioural norms, and rules fundamental amongst these long-standing user groups

268

10

The Community-Minded Spirit of the Shetland Heroin Scene

(cf. Sect. 8.2). The most central norms and rules for the majority of groups include
the association of heroin use with special, occasional, partly reoccurring events
(e.g. Kay: midsummer, birthdays, or Christmas). During these events, the use of
heroin was/is ritualistically celebrated as something extraordinary, highly valued,
highly bonding, and sometimes almost spiritual. Furthermore, these users all
seem to reject injecting as an acceptable route of administration, regular, habitual
patterns of use, or using in order to cope with personal problems. Apart from
the community-minded attitude and a shared ideational group spirit, a carefully
maintained secrecy regarding all heroin-related activities has seemingly always
been maintained by consumers. Through the combination of these fundamental
norms, the preservation of the social, sophisticated, and controlled nature of the
cliques, and the relaxed, unproblematic style in which their members conducted the
use of heroin, is apparently facilitated.

10.2.2

The Era of the Old School

What happened to the community-minded spirit when the second significant
generation of heroin users in Shetland, the so-called old school users, took over the
organisation and ‘management’ of the heroin subculture at some point between
the late 1980s and the early 1990s? The values, norms, and rules of the ‘old school’
are presented as essentially aimed at protecting the secretive and controlled nature
of the island heroin subculture in order to avoid public and especially police
attention and the associated risk of social stigmatisation and arrest. In connection
with these guidelines, participants describe relatively stringent prescriptions in terms
of restricting the amounts of heroin brought to the island and carefully selecting
the people being supplied. Youngsters, novices, unknown, and irresponsibly using
people were largely excluded.
The old school users seem to have organised and managed the subculture consistently with social (albeit strictly regulated) principles, while commercial concerns,
such as abolishing the amount and user restrictions, were largely dismissed as
putting secrecy and control at risk. While injecting was seemingly an accepted and
common route of ingesting heroin, excessive, risky, and ‘irresponsible’ using styles
were generally rejected and sanctioned with supply exclusion and a bad reputation
within the user community. During the early days, the heroin subculture apparently
existed in a fragmented, loosely structured, largely unhierarchical form. Secretive,
infrequent, and non-injecting heroin use seems to have been the norm. During
the era of the old school by contrast, a certain hierarchy of dealers and users was
apparently established, and both the internal homeostasis and integration into the
wider culture were strictly reinforced, primarily by those who sold heroin.
The prioritisation of social, that is, community-minded over commercial and
selfish manners between dealers and users and amongst users, is repeatedly outlined
and stressed by several of the interviewed old school users. The conscious adherence
to the social, control, and regulative guiding principles seems to have been necessary

10.2

Community-Mindedness, the Overall Scene Mentality…

269

in order to uphold the equilibrium of the scene’s ordered, structured, and contained
nature and the subculture’s non-intrusive existence in a niche of the Shetland society.
Hence, whereas during the early days community-mindedness seems to have
represented a natural by-product of the scene’s disposition, it became a consciously
treasured and carefully protected mentality feature throughout the era of the old
school until a new epoch began in the late 1990s.

10.2.3

The Contained Commercialisation

The phase of contained commercialisation which followed the era of the old school
was apparently characterised by a significant steepening of the heroin subculture’s
hierarchy and a centralisation of heroin supply towards one main dealer. Additionally,
the supply network became structured in a considerably stricter manner than before
(cf. Sect. 8.4.4).
Although, according to interviewees, the supply of heroin in Shetland became
truly commercialised for the first time, the principles of strict control and secrecy of
the preceding era seemed to continue. The dealer’s underlying commercial intention
of buying and selling heroin becomes particularly obvious when considering
that, also for the first time, someone in Shetland engaged in heroin dealing without
being a user. Thus, the dealer’s goals were not emotionally driven, but exclusively
or chiefly profit-oriented.
Interviewees explain that the dealer’s way of ensuring secrecy and social inconspicuousness, despite the increased supply and subsequent multiplication of users,
focussed primarily on a strict set of rules. A stringently structured and hierarchical
supply network and control and secrecy maintaining manners constituted secondary
measures. These rules embraced regular supply restrictions and interruptions as
well as all apparent norms and prescriptions of the old school, except for the rule
proscribing commercialised dealing. Ultimately, the dealer’s actions are described
to have been characterised by a community-minded, socially responsible attitude,
oriented towards the preservation of the Shetland community’s safety. During this
stage, injecting as a means of administration is reported to have grown substantially
in acceptability and thus spread amongst heroin consumers.
Inferring from interview accounts, the ‘heroin explosion’ at the beginning of
the new millennium was combined with a specific arrangement of conditions
(cf. Sect. 8.5). This instigated the end of the contained commercialisation period
and the beginning of the commercial peak phase.

10.2.4

The Commercial Peak

The two main dealers of the commercial peak largely prioritised a relatively uncompromising striving for supply and profit maximisation over the previously common

270

10

The Community-Minded Spirit of the Shetland Heroin Scene

responsible dealing manners. Consequently, they probably contributed substantially
to the broad spread of selfishness and the decline of social norms amongst many
users. Additionally, and in contrast to the main dealer of the preceding era, at least
one of the two dealers of the commercial peak used heroin in a heavy and addicted
way themselves. Therefore, the endeavours to capitalise on heroin trade to the extent
described under Sect. 8.5 were probably not only money oriented but also emotionally driven by the urge to satisfy the dealer(s) own heroin demands. Interviewees
repeatedly present the commercial peak as being characterised by the complete
discontinuation of all social values including the superordinate community-mindedness.
Participants outline that since countless heroin deals have been conducted in
one dealer’s flat, most of these deals were clearly noticeable for outsiders such as
neighbours. This was contrary to the previously secretive supply and the customer
restrictions. This way, the scene apparently lost its controlled and manageable
nature. The corresponding interviews suggest that as a consequence of continuously
increasing rates of heavy use and heroin addiction, the influence of the priorly common
community-minded spirit of the scene was apparently further counteracted and
inhibited. Participants portray a gradual shift from social and caring manners to
egoistic, opportunistic norms and behaviours. The extreme end of the observable
behavioural continuum in this epoch even extended to mildly violent and criminal
tendencies. Furthermore, intravenous heroin consumption is described as having
increased in acceptability and application amongst users including youngsters.
This trend might have been intensified by the role model position of one of the dealers,
generally known for his heavy, regular, partly excessive injecting drug use.
As concluded from the interviews, the impact of community-mindedness on the
overall Shetland heroin scene with regard to the style of dealing perceivably declined
over the contained commercialisation and especially the commercial peak eras.
Even if the overall scene’s character changed from the previous community-minded
orientation, high levels of family-like, warm, and social caring seemingly lived
on unaffected within the scope of many individual user circles. Examples include
long-standing and newer crowds of occasional consumers but also of habitual and
heavier users. While exclusive user cliques bonded by friendship and comradeship
appear to often largely maintain immunity from the value changes taking place
within the general subculture, other circles, primarily of heavier, habitual users,
seem decisively more affected by the topically dominating value system.

10.2.5

The Current Fragmentation

After the ‘loss of control’ over the heroin scene and the subsequent downfall of
the commercial peak following the arrest of one of the main dealers (cf. Sect. 8.5.9),
the subculture apparently underwent a fragmentation of its supply network and user
circles. As stated by participants, the cliquey social structures resumed at least temporarily their earlier dominance (cf. Sect. 8.6.2). Within these cliques, interview
accounts suggest a widespread reconsideration and readoption of the community-

10.2

Community-Mindedness, the Overall Scene Mentality…

271

minded spirit that had bonded befriended and acquainted users in former times took
place. Many groups of especially occasional consumers seem to have had communityminded attitudes and manners throughout all scene stages and to have continuously acted accordingly in natural, spontaneous ways. In contrast, many circles and
cliques of heavier, habitual consumers appear to have resorted rather out of neediness to social and companionable styles of interaction. Rather than upholding
social and communal values out of the desire to share a bonding experience, as
tends to be the case for casual users, their prioritised interest may have been
arranging easy access to heroin. In this context, communally performed small
group supply, relying on a set of social norms including a community-minded
orientation, was presumably helpful.
Due to invasive police intervention, the heroin subculture seemingly reverted to
its formerly prevailing ‘safe modus’ of secrecy, community-minded orientation,
and companionable, non-hierarchical, and fragmented structures. The main underlying
force driving this drastic transformation seems explicable in terms of users’ and
dealers’ endeavours to regain control over the subculture and thus their own subcultural existence. ‘Control’ in this context can be understood in terms of calculable
risks regarding public and police attention.
Roughly speaking, circles of regular, heavier users tend to mirror the general
scene atmosphere at a given point in time to a significantly more obvious degree
than stable occasional users. The reason seems to be that regular users are much
more likely to develop addictive and potentially excessive using patterns when
sufficient amounts of heroin are accessible. Heavy users in Shetland appear to adapt
their frequency and strength of use to the external circumstances of the local heroin
market significantly more than occasional users, who tend to consume much less
than they could attain, if they tried. Thus, regarding amounts and frequency of use,
occasional users tend to be oriented towards an internally controlled regulation
system, whereas heavy users exhibit a tendency to be oriented towards a system
of external regulation. The historical perspective of the Shetland heroin scene has
demonstrated that the extent of heroin use and addiction depends strongly on
the respective, era-bound circumstances of the overall subculture and especially
the market.

10.2.6

The Dichotomy of Community-Mindedness:
Social Care and Social Exclusion

As emphasised throughout Part II and briefly recalled here, the definition of communitymindedness, as used throughout this book, contains – apart from the caring, social
component also a reverse side – a strong sense of exclusion concerning those
collectively perceived as belonging to the out-group (cf. Sects. 5.2.4 and 7.3, specifically 7.3.5.1). Such people tend to commonly be met with prejudice, stigmatisation,
and rejection. Besides specific persons and groups per se, an array of manners
and behavioural styles is regarded negatively and treated dismissively. In this

272

10

The Community-Minded Spirit of the Shetland Heroin Scene

respect, variation is described across the five scene stages. As cited in the Part II,
McCallion refers to this variability as an ongoing process of change regarding the
permeability and impermeability of in- and out-groups (cf. Sect. 5.2.4, p. 98). The
specifics of in- and out-groups, their degree of permeability, and the acceptability of
conduct seem to be decisively determined by the dominant dealer(s) at a given time,
similar to the work atmosphere in a company being largely dependent on the
manager.
During the early days, only chosen, known, and befriended people appear to
have belonged to the general in-group. The impression is conveyed that egoistical,
antisocial, as well as non-secretive behaviours, injecting, hazardous, excessive
patterns of use, and physical or psychological dependence were disclaimed by the
majority of heroin consumers. During the subsequent era of the old school, both the
boundaries encompassing the in-group and behaviours considered acceptable seem
to have become more permeable. This trend appears to have persisted and further
strengthened during the contained commercialisation and especially the commercial
peak period. Due to the intensified fear of police and public detection during the
current fragmentation, the subcultural in-group/out-group definitions became
largely refined to people’s own immediate circle of user friends. The resumption of
small and smallish user groups appears to have been accompanied by an, at least
temporary, all-embracing recommencement of community-mindedness and secrecy
manners common in the early days. However, habitual and intravenous patterns of
use, disregarded in the first era, apparently remain acceptable.
As indicated above, which groups tended to be rejected and to which degree
depended on the collective trend of a specific era. Participants outline not only the
occurrence of inter-group and -personal variation at a certain point in time but
also intra-group and -personal variation across time (cf. Sect. 7.3, specifically
7.3.5.1). Many people who previously objected to heroin use or injecting tended to
adapt their attitudes when becoming heroin users or injectors themselves. This shift
in attitude seems explicable in terms of accommodating and integrating the previously frowned upon behaviour with one’s own self-image by generating a positive
attitude towards it (cf. Fishbein and Ajzen 1975).

References
Cornejo, C. (2007). Review essay: The locus of subjectivity in cultural studies. Culture &
Psychology, 13(2), 243–256.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behaviour: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. London: Sage.

Chapter 11

Summary of Part II

11.1

Summary

The preceding Part II provides a comprehensive, thorough, and profound representation
of the heroin scene in Shetland from the perspectives of the 24 interviewed local
heroin users. The second chapter of Part II describes the general alcohol and recreational drug using scene in order to create a context in which the reconstruction of
the heroin scene could be embedded.
The third chapter illustrates the nature and outward appearance of the scene in
terms of quantifiable characteristics, and the fourth chapter deals with the internal
structure and the organisation of the heroin subculture.
The fifth chapter depicts the outward and internal features throughout a period
of approximately 25 years, beginning with the initiation of the scene in the late
1970s and ending with the point in time of the interviews in early summer 2004.
This period was found to comprise five distinct phases that have been specified
as ‘the early days’, ‘the era of the old school’, ‘the contained commercialisation’, ‘the
commercial peak’, and ‘the current fragmentation’.

11.2
11.2.1

Shetland and Substance Use
The Alcohol Culture

Overall, interviewees agree that the consumption of alcohol has been ingrained in
the Shetland culture for a long time. Regular and excessive using patterns, which are
typically associated with the island population’s Viking ancestors, seem to be widely
accepted and often even desired. Alcohol abstinence, on the other hand, tends to be
regarded as almost socially deviant, especially within the general party and pub
scene. Although not every single person in Shetland drinks on a regular and heavy

A. Stallwitz, The Role of Community-Mindedness in the Self-Regulation of Drug
Cultures: A Case Study from the Shetland Islands, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3861-4_11,
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

273

274

11 Summary of Part II

basis, large parts of the Shetland community seem to embrace alcohol use, including
both genders, teenagers from an early age, and people from all socio-economic
backgrounds.

11.2.2

The Overall Drug Scene

Interviewees associate the establishment of both the general drug and the heroin
scene in Shetland with a considerable influx of hippie drop-outs and of oil workers,
when the oil terminal Sullom Voe was built in the late 1970s. Although drugs
seem to have been obtainable in Shetland beforehand, through the advent of the oil
workers and hippies a proper scene was apparently established and illicit drugs
became available.
Together with alcohol, recreational drugs such as cannabis, ecstasy, and amphetamines are nowadays used by large parts of the island population, particularly in
party contexts.
11.2.2.1

The Problem-Reduced Nature of the Shetland Drug Scene

Interviewees generally present the Shetland drug subculture as being significantly
less determined by socio-economic problems than subcultures on the urban mainland. Nonetheless, besides the increase in injecting, interviewees also describe a
recent rise in addiction rates within the heroin and amphetamine scenes in
particular.
11.2.2.2

Availability and Acceptability of Illicit Drugs in Shetland

Regarding the purchasability of all illicit drugs, many participants explain that due
to Shetland’s geographic isolation, every illegal psychoactive substance experiences
regular phases of unavailability. Droughts of one drug are typically compensated
with the substitution of other drugs obtainable at that time.
Recreational drugs including ecstasy, speed, cannabis, and cocaine appear to
enjoy a far-reaching social acceptability amongst large parts of the younger and,
to a lesser degree, the middle-aged Shetland population. In contrast, most participants describe heroin as generally stigmatised and acceptable only in specific groups
and social circles.
11.2.2.3

Quality of Drugs in Shetland

As a rule, the drugs sold on the Shetland market seem to be of considerably poorer
quality and higher price than usually in urban areas on the British mainland, which
is typically associated with the difficulties involved in bringing illegal drugs to the
remote island.

11.3

The Features and Descriptive Characteristics of the Heroin Scene…

11.2.2.4

275

Spread of Excessive and Intravenous Drug Use

While excessive alcohol use is reported to date back far into the islands’ past, styles
of extreme recreational drug consumption seem to have become common approximately a decade ago. Patterns of very heavy heroin use apparently began to occur
even more recently.
According to participant accounts, the intravenous intake of drugs – referring
mainly to heroin and amphetamines, and to a lesser degree to ecstasy – has risen
noticeably in recent years, suggesting that this route of administration has generally
become more acceptable amongst certain groups of illicit drug users.

11.3

11.3.1

The Features and Descriptive Characteristics
of the Heroin Scene on the Shetland Islands
The Shetland Heroin Scene: Problem-Reduced
and Socially Unobtrusive

In contrast to the relatively open recreational drug culture, the heroin scene is
described as much more secretive, separated from the general social pub and party
culture, and therefore far less perceptible. Interviewees explain that this is the result
of the comprehensive secrecy in which heroin use and trade-related activities are
usually embedded due to the strong social stigma attached to the drug. The effect of
the stigma is presented as particularly intense in the small, close-knit, remote community of Shetland.
Problems typically associated by interviewees with drug, and especially heroin
use comprise socio-economic marginalisation, crime, violence, prostitution, an
open drug scene, and physical morbidity. These are described as largely nonexistent or imperceptible in Shetland. Interviewees attribute the comparatively
unproblematic conditions of the island heroin scene to the prosperous socioeconomic Shetland situation. Hence, a great proportion of heroin users seem to
finance their drug demand through paid work. Besides, as a result of the fear of
the thorough social control within the Shetland community and of police detection,
the occurrence of acquisitive drugs crime seems, apart from dealing, to be largely
prevented.
However, general concern is expressed regarding the relatively high levels of
hepatitis C infections amongst Shetland heroin injectors.

11.3.1.1

Availability, Quality, and Price

Interviewees also trace the relatively low levels of heroin use-related problems
back to the frequently and regularly occurring droughts and shortages and often low

276

11 Summary of Part II

quality of the heroin sold in Shetland. In this context, the intermittent availability
and low quality are typically depicted as external safeguards against high rates
of heroin addiction and associated adverse effects. However, the risk of overdoses
on occasions of unexpectedly pure heroin is increased. During heroin droughts,
noticeable upsurges in intravenous amphetamine use and methadone prescriptions
are reported as common compensatory strategies. As a consequence of the regularly
interrupted availability and accessibility of the drug for most of the island users,
interviewees evaluate rates of heavy, addictive heroin use as low compared to
urban environments. Only bigger dealers and their social circles apparently can
have consistent access to the opiate and thus tend to exhibit the greatest prevalence
of addictive use.
11.3.1.2

Community-Mindedness: Caring for One’s Own

Interviewees explain that helping each other out is very common during periods of
financial or drug dearth, since the overall Shetland mentality is strongly influenced
by a community-minded spirit.
11.3.1.3

Size and Location of the Heroin Scene

Participants’ estimations regarding the size of the island heroin scene vary between
a 100 and 500 people, embracing regular, heavy, and occasional users.
Interviewees almost unanimously locate the centre point of the heroin scene, and
especially market, in the capital and biggest town Lerwick. Nonetheless, heroin use
and, to some degree, heroin trade also seem to occur in remote and rural places.
11.3.1.4

Age Range and Gender Distribution of Users

Generally, participants agree with respect to people in Shetland starting to use
heroin at an older average age than mainlanders would, although a recent trend
towards a younger age of initial heroin use is reported. One user suggests that the
age ranges from 16 or younger to 60.
Most interviewees state an evident male dominance amongst users and especially
dealers. Some participants assert that there are almost equal proportions of men
and women, however, with the former on a whole tending towards heavier, riskier,
and more excessive styles of use as well as more active and prominent roles within
the overall subculture.
11.3.1.5

Patterns of Use

Overall, interviewees agree about an enormous increase in injecting amongst heroin
and amphetamine users since approximately the turn of the millennium. Before then,

11.4

The Internal Structure of the Shetland Heroin Scene

277

heroin was apparently mainly smoked and sometimes snorted, and speed was
typically snorted. Only small groups injected either drug. Connections are described
between the expansion of overall drug use, including heroin, and injecting.
Interviewees suggest that these developments in Shetland correspond to earlier
developments on the urban mainland of Britain. Thus, patterns of drug use in
Shetland may mirror the urban British trend. Additionally, the beginning recession
in Shetland is mentioned as causing some heroin smokers to inject in order to
save money.
On the whole, interviewees affirm a strong tendency amongst Shetland drug
users to consume more than a single substance at one using occasion, which
might be explicable with the purportedly typical Shetland propensity to aim for
experiences of extreme intoxication. A readiness to interchange psychoactive
substances according to availability is stated by numerous participants. Nonetheless,
the generally restricted availability of most drugs also seems to externally restrict
unlimited, excessive multiple drug use.

11.3.2

Recent Changes of the Heroin Scene in Shetland

Abundant differences are pointed out when comparing the heroin subculture in
Shetland with subcultures in urban Britain. Nonetheless, participants suggest a
recent adjustment in some features of the Shetland scene to ‘typical’ urban scenes
since approximately 1999, 5 years before the interviews. This trend, as explicated
in the interviews, becomes manifest in an expansion of overall heroin use and
injecting, an increase of diverse users of both genders and from all social backgrounds, an age span now expanding to the young end, and a rise in addiction and
hepatitis C rates.

11.4
11.4.1

The Internal Structure of the Shetland Heroin Scene
A Subculture of Diverse User Types and Groups

Inferring from the interviews, it seems the Shetland heroin scene consists of a wide
range of diverse user types and user circles. These are differentiated according to
user characteristics such as hidden versus obvious heroin use, socio-economically
integration versus marginalisation, and categories such as male versus female,
users from Shetland versus users from the British mainland, and people living in
Lerwick versus people living in the countryside. Furthermore, details are provided
about groups of heavy employed, unemployed, and extreme consumers, as well as
about recreational, occasional groups. The overall population of Shetland heroin
users seems to embrace a wide spectrum of consumers, with socially integrated,

278

11 Summary of Part II

well-educated people in high-status employment who possess their own houses at
one end, and unemployed persons in temporary accommodation with a social
environment of mainly other heroin users at the other end.
The population of heavy and addicted heroin users is reported to embrace both
socially well-integrated and less well-integrated Shetlanders. The most differentiating characteristic between the two groups might be employment status. Within
the circle of heavy users, a subgroup is presented to exist comprising young men
who live an extreme lifestyle of alternating between hard, risky work and drug
use. This way of ‘living life on the edge’ is traced back to the original Viking
mentality in Shetland.
The often socially well-integrated occasional users seemingly tend to ingest the
opiate by smoking or snorting, and only rarely by injecting. Using intensity seems
to be generally regulated by certain control norms, rules, and rituals.
Groups of female heroin users are generally portrayed as characterised by greater
secretiveness, caution, and control than male crowds. Moreover, female users seem
to be less actively involved in the heroin scene and more rarely seek professional
help. Groups of heroin users living in the Shetland countryside appear to have similar
features to female user circles.

11.4.1.1

Contact Between Groups and Circles

Contact between different groups appears to vary greatly. Some circles seem to mix
readily while others strictly exclude each other. A user clique tends to include people
of equal or similar socio-economic backgrounds, using patterns, motivations,
and levels of scene involvement. In some cases, age or gender also appears decisive
in belonging to certain circles and groups. Interviewees describe a tendency to
build exclusive user cliques, which they explain in terms of the small size of the
island community, the strong effect of the stigma attached to heroin, and the general
heroin scarcity.

11.4.1.2

Scene Position and Access to Heroin

People engaging with heroin use and trade in Shetland seem to be involved in the
heroin subculture to very differing degrees, ranging from passive, peripheral to
active, central positions. Interviewees differentiate between the ‘hard core’, the
‘peripheral edge’, and ‘in between’. The hard core embraces people who use with
regularity, mainly heavily, addictively, and intravenously and frequently deal,
whereas the peripheral edge embraces rarely consuming recreational users, most of
whom who solely smoke or snort. The interview analysis suggests that access to
heroin is determined by the level of scene involvement, the scene position, and the
general social contacts of a user.

11.4

The Internal Structure of the Shetland Heroin Scene

11.4.2

279

Supply Structures

Although heroin dealing mainly takes place in Shetland’s biggest town, Lerwick,
interviewees affirm it to also occur in other parts of Shetland, predominantly towns
and villages relatively well connected to Lerwick by public transport. In the past
few years, in particular, the heroin market seems to have expanded further to rural
and remote districts of the islands, with the supply in these regions nonetheless
remaining very restricted and erratic.
11.4.2.1

The Shetland Way of Dealing and Supplying

On balance, the interviewed users describe the atmosphere and mentality of
the heroin scene as determined by the island-typical community-minded spirit and
attitude that also includes the usual style of dealing. Explanations in this context
refer to the fact that criminal and violent behaviours are regarded as unacceptable
by most Shetlanders and tend to sanctioned by the community and/or the police.
In large part, heroin dealing in Shetland apparently relies on small group supply
with one group member travelling to the British mainland, often the nearest city,
Aberdeen, to purchase heroin for the whole clique. Quantities are typically sufficient to last for a while, but are still restricted to keep the risk of detection and arrest
when returning to Shetland at a minimum.
Furthermore, this community-minded style of heroin supply is presented as
embracing a companionable exchange of heroin amongst many consumers when
money or heroin is scarce. Thus, a system is entertained of giving and owing each
other drugs/money in turns.
Accumulating debts that are paid whenever manageable for the borrower
also appears to be an acceptable scheme to finance heroin use at times when the
necessary money is not disposable.
Generally, the Shetland style of heroin dealing and supplying, largely enacted
without violent pressure and force, is depicted as notably more relaxed and ‘softer’
than common in cities. Notwithstanding, a few interviewees allude to recent violent
incidents involving urban suppliers.
11.4.2.2

Dealers

Dealing is said to take place in different forms and on varying levels, with distributing
heroin for bigger dealers representing a kind of small-scale dealing.
The numbers of persons dealing party drugs and heroin in Shetland has been
assessed to amount to 30 and between one and at most four, respectively. The comparatively small proportion of heroin sellers, on average aged older than party
drug dealers, is said to result from the stronger fear of stigmatisation and arrest
associated with heroin dealing.

280

11 Summary of Part II

Heroin users dealing on a large scale are pictured as having access to decisively
greater heroin quantities than other people and thus are typically the users with the
severest addictions.

11.4.3

Heroin Scene Mentality: Community-Mindedness
and Cliqueyness

Community-mindedness – a strong tendency to care for and trust each other, on the
one hand, and to stigmatise and exclude people acting in ways regarded as deviant,
on the other – appears to constitute a central mentality feature not only of the
Shetland community but also its social scenes, including the drug subcultures.
Interviewees associate this mentality aspect with the small size and geographic
isolation of the islands, which encourages the island community to form a close-knit
social network within which everyone knows each other and social acts have a high
visibility. This mentality phenomenon apparently manifests itself as a propensity
to create in- and out-groups and, consequently, highly selective, exclusive, and
elitist cliques. Users regarded as belonging to an out-group can seemingly experience
substantial difficulties in obtaining heroin on the island, especially in phases of
general scarcity.
The diminishing but widely evident community-minded attitude amongst
Shetland heroin users is also often associated with the comparatively relaxed and
‘soft’ style of supplying and dealing heroin that largely occurs without violent pressure and force.

11.4.4

Beginning Spread of Mainland Mentality:
‘Junkie Tendencies’

According to participants, an intensified inclination to grass on, that is, backstab,
other users and dealers constitutes a further mentality feature that appears to be
promoted by the tight social network and might thus be less common within urban
heroin scenes. However, until recently, grassing seemingly had no major impact on
the island subculture, since to all appearances, community-oriented demeanours
outweighed deceitful, perfidious, and selfish motives. This notwithstanding,
participants depict grassing as having become more prevalent in recent times.
This development is attributed to an overall augmentation and spread of junkie
tendencies within certain factions of the heroin scene. Such tendencies also embrace
an intensification of self-oriented and antisocial behaviours in contrast to communal
behaviours. Besides a preparedness to take advantage of other people, including
fellow users, some consumers might be willing to act deceptively, criminally, or
violently in connection with heroin use and trade.

11.5 The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

11.5

281

The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical
Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

During the interview analysis, a pattern of the changes the Shetland heroin scene
had undergone since its early days in the 1970s emerged, suggesting the succession
of five distinct phases. On this basis, the historical creation and growth of the islands’
heroin subculture has been reconstructed as outlined below.

11.5.1

The Early Days of the Shetland Heroin Scene

11.5.1.1

The Beginnings of the Shetland Heroin Scene:
Hippies and Oil Workers

Interviewees explain that, for both the establishing and extending of the illegal drug
and the heroin scene, oil workers and hippies played founding father roles. According
to interview descriptions, this original crew of heroin users typically smoked
restricted amounts of heroin on an occasional basis, stringently avoiding the genesis
of addiction and other adverse physical and psychological effects. It seems the use
of heroin tended to be regarded and handled as a specific treat, consumed only with
specific people on exclusive occasions.

11.5.1.2

Using Heroin in the Shetland in the 1980s:
‘Same as Having a Drink or a Joint’

Participants portray the use of heroin in these former days as a rare, highly appreciated, and ritualised phenomenon performed solely by a limited number of select
people. Apparently, the suppliers strictly restricted the quantities of heroin they
made available in Shetland to an average of approximately a gram per month, and
heroin measures were usually sold in individual snorting lines or smoking doses.
Generally, both suppliers and users appear to have pursued a communally shared,
particular drug using experience far from commercial goals.

11.5.1.3

A Small Scene of Responsible Older Users

Apart from responsible, attributes such as small, social, not noticeable, exclusive,
civilised, controlled, older, and mature are provided to characterise the early heroin
users. No interviewee associates incidences of chaotic, hazardous, or intravenous
use with this period, which, according to participants, lasted from the late 1970s/
early 1980s until the late 1980s/early 1990s.

282

11.5.1.4

11 Summary of Part II

Ideational Heroin Use Within the Framework
of Small, Secretive, and Select Groups

A particular emphasis seems to have been laid on maintaining the commonly shared
ideational foundation of the using occasions. Someone describes this foundation
as determined by a world view of ‘love and peace’. The ideational base seems
to play a crucial role in the long maintenance of the two groups and their original
standards.
11.5.1.5

The Golden Light of the Good Old Days

Representations of this distant past might to certain degrees be tainted with subjectivity and glamorisation. Hence, the golden light of such accounts should be
somewhat relativised.
11.5.1.6

Conditions of Change: A Second-Generation Taking Over

While probably not perceptible from the outside, the scene’s internal network is
stated to have been subjected to fundamental reorganisations and changes over the
years. Both suppliers and users centrally involved in the subculture apparently
shifted decisively.
According to interviewees, a considerable number of heavy heroin users, who
had been engaged in heroin scenes in diverse British cities, moved to Shetland
between the mid-1980s and the mid-1990s to regain control over their addicted
heroin use and their overall lives. These old school introduced users apparently
reactivated and further established the heroin culture in Shetland after the bulk of
the oil workers had left the island.

11.5.2

The Era of the Old School

11.5.2.1

Regulating the Scene

Although the old school users from the urban mainland had in their previous urban
contexts used heavily, intravenously, and were often engaged in acquisitive crime,
the scene they established in Shetland was characterised by careful control and
regulation of supply and use. While not as exclusive as the original crew any more,
the old school users are still depicted as having upheld a stringent moral code and a
strict set of norms and rules. These include protecting young and inexperienced
people from contact with heroin and intravenous drug use and dealing heroin according
to controlled, non-commercial, community-oriented guidelines. This way, the heroin
scene seemingly could be maintained in its relatively small and unproblematic,
exclusive state involving predominantly men in their late 20s and older.

11.5 The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

11.5.2.2

283

Properties and Conditions of the Heroin
Market Throughout the 1990s

Until the late 1980s, the heroin supply may have been organised in a large part
by the original crew. However, being socially ‘well-connected’ with the relevant
people apparently increased the probability of obtaining access to heroin. Before the
heroin supply in Shetland was subjected to the first commercial transformations,
access seems to have largely depended on social relations.
Overall, interview accounts suggest that through the old school, heroin became
available to a greater number of less exclusive people from the early or mid-1990s.
Nonetheless, users were still carefully monitored, and supply frequency and amounts
continued to be controlled. Therefore, access presumably was possible, but for
many only with concerted efforts and only in small quantities.
On a Shetland-specific level, interviewees relate the greater availability of heroin
to the advent of the old school, and on an superordinate level to the general
British trend towards heroin consumption: The opiate had first become more available in metropolitan England, some years later in Scotland, and later again in
the most northerly major Scottish city, Aberdeen, before it could finally be bought
in Shetland.
Throughout the first two phases of the heroin scene, the quality of the opiate was
seemingly often relatively pure, which is generally associated with the restricted
numbers of users and the small quantities supplied non-commercially.

11.5.2.3

Police Turning a Blind Eye?

A few interviewees affirm that for a long period of time, the police virtually ‘turned
a blind eye’ to the small, secretive, and inconspicuous heroin scene on the islands.
Besides by the unproblematic nature of the scene, this ignoring is also linked to the
Shetland mentality of ‘sticking the head in the sand’ concerning uncomfortable and
undesirable phenomena.

11.5.2.4

A Changing Trend: A Gradual Growing
and Opening of the Heroin Scene

The interviews imply that the Shetland heroin scene had existed for approximately
two decades from the mid-/late 1970s in a small, undercover, and socially unobtrusive form. Around the mid-1990s, heroin apparently started slowly to become more
available in Shetland outside the strict limits of small exclusive user groups and
circles. Participants outline how a growing number of people started using heroin,
including previous party drug users, ‘boozers’, and ‘dope smokers’. Both the numbers of occasional, recreational smokers and of heavy, addicted injectors are
stated to have increased since, and many previously uninterested people seized the
opportunity to avail themselves of the facilitated accessibility.

284

11 Summary of Part II

Besides a surge in the number of people using heroin, a rise in injecting rates
amongst heroin and amphetamine users is reported.
The expansion of the heroin scene had apparently been preceded by a considerable
increase in party drug use, specifically amphetamines and MDMA.
Together with a relative opening of the heroin scene and the spread and facilitation
of heroin availability, the demand for drug intervention also amplified when more
people consumed in an addictive and risky, intravenous styles fashion.

11.5.3

The Contained Commercialisation

11.5.3.1

Conditions of Change: A Beginning Commercialisation
of Heroin Use as an Aftermath of the Rave Era?

According to interviews, someone recognised the developing heroin demand in
Shetland in the late 1990s and consequently began selling large amounts of the opiate
on a regular, albeit intermittent basis. To all appearances, he was Shetland’s first
commercially oriented heroin dealer.
On the subject of the superordinate socio-historical conditions initialising the
spread and growth of the heroin subculture, the ‘explosion’ of the rave culture in
Shetland in the early 1990s is mentioned. The wide-reaching rave and party culture is
presented as having set the course for the following expansion of the heroin culture.
Apparently, the rave era caused party drugs, such as ecstasy and speed, to become
more normalised and commercialised. With a delay, and to a lesser degree, a similar
development and consequent growing acceptance is described regarding heroin.
Participants explain that after the availability and the use of drugs in general had
increased, an outright shift from party drugs to heroin was observable within the overall scene of drug users. As a promoter of this shift, interviewees name the Shetlandspecific cultural inclination to experiment readily with new things, including drugs.
11.5.3.2

Drug Use in a Globalised World: The British
Heroin Trend Finally Reaching Shetland?

Interview accounts suggest that Shetland basically echoes, with a delay of 10–15
years, what had previously happened across Scotland and Britain, or possibly even
Europe: After the heyday of the rave era, a significant increase in heroin use was
observable. The farther North and the more rural and remote regions are, the greater
appears the delay with which the heroin trend becomes noticeable. Thus, Shetland
was presumably one of the last places.
11.5.3.3

Availability and Quality

According to participants, between 1998 and 1999, the hitherto stringent restrictions
on heroin availability began to loosen. Interviewees explain that, whereas in former

11.5 The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

285

times hardly any young person below the age 25 was able to access heroin, this
started to change from the late 1990s. More women and more young people began
using heroin.
Interview accounts suggest heroin quality was on average lower than during the
preceding era of the old school, but still ‘reasonable’.

11.5.3.4

Internal Structure: From Small Group Supply
to One Main Dealer

Participant accounts suggest a major transformation with respect to the organisation
of the heroin supply network around the year 1998.
Previously, heroin supply seems in large part to have taken place in the form of
small group supply and small-scale dealing by some of the more regular heroin
users. By the year 1998, the ‘small group supply system’ was apparently largely
replaced by supply through one main dealer, a mainlander in his late 30s. According
to participant accounts, between 1998 and the end of 2000/beginning of 2001, the
man supplied a major part of the island’s heroin-using population. Despite the
centralised supply scheme, small user groups still seem to have continued purchasing
and consuming together.
Apparently, the dealer represented the head of a carefully calculated and organised
supply system based on controls and restrictions of heroin amounts supplied
and customers. Furthermore, interviewees explain that he deliberately arranged for
heroin droughts of up to 8 weeks to keep the scene ‘contained’. Moreover, he seems
to have tried to maintain a maximal level of heroin trade-related secrecy to prevent
a ‘heroin epidemic’ and his loss of control over the scene.
Even with his obvious commercial motivation, the dealer seems to have continued
to uphold the values, norms, and rules of the old school, such as the non-acceptance
of supply to young people as one of numerous behavioural rules.
On the whole, his style of dealing and distributing could be called ‘contained
commercialisation’.

11.5.3.5

Once Again at the Verge of Change: The Explosion

The personal, communal character of the heroin subculture is stated to have changed
significantly when ‘heroin exploded onto the scene’ and a volcano-like outburst of
heroin use seemingly happened almost unexpectedly at the end of 2000. With its
‘explosion into a major scene’, the subculture apparently changed its internal organisation and the small user-group structure lost significantly in influence. The dynamics underlying the explosion are presented as related to the rave era’s aftermath.
The explosion seems to implicate a progression from contained to uncontained
commercialisation, during which the numbers of heroin users of all ages and social
backgrounds increased ‘exponentially’.

286

11 Summary of Part II

11.5.4

The Commercial Peak

11.5.4.1

Expansion and Noticeability

In association with the immense spread of heroin use, seemingly countless
Shetlanders began consuming the opiate in partly regular, heavy, and hazardous
styles. With the newly facilitated accessibility of the opiate to a wide range of
different people, even completely uninvolved outsiders and foreigners could obtain
the drug during this era suitably designated commercial peak.

11.5.4.2

Conditions Associated with the Expansion of the Heroin Scene

On a concrete level, interviewees explain that the arrival on the scene of another
dealer in 2001 contributed decisively to the ending of the balanced and socially
unobtrusive state of heroin scene. Together, the original older dealer and the new
younger dealer, a Shetlander in his mid-20s, are reported to have established a
regular and extensive heroin supply, strongly furthering the spread of heroin
addiction across the islands and gradually supplanting the original social and
control norms with commercial principles. In addition, the safeguarding, close-knit
small group structure was seemingly step by step substituted by an undifferentiated,
big, commercially oriented crowd of self-serving users.
An even more commercial and less social course is described after the original
dealer was caught and incarcerated and the young man took over the heroin
market, together with another older Shetlander. The two dealers apparently began a
co-operation with a significant dealing and supply network in Liverpool – the
Liverpool connection. Consequently, the island was ‘flooded’ with heroin that was
sold freely and without much differentiation or restriction.

11.5.4.3

Availability of Heroin: Wholesale Supply

This commercial peak is characterised by respondents as ‘commercial’ dealing of
‘heroin in bulk’ in a ‘wholesale supply’ style. The phase presumably started around
the beginning of 2001 and ended at the beginning of 2004.
On balance, the era of the commercial peak is explained as resulting from a combination of Shetland’s general cultural make-up in terms of its tendency towards
patterns of extreme and excessive substance use, the national/global drug trend, and
the concrete conditions of the scene’s internal structure at the given time.
Interviews suggest that at the heyday of the commercial peak between
2002 and 2004, virtually everyone could access heroin, including adolescents.
As a consequence, interviewees state a significant diversification of the user
population and an overall rise in addiction rates amongst older, young, and even
teenage users.

11.5 The Shetland Heroin Scene from a Historical Perspective: Five Distinct Eras

11.5.4.4

287

Quality and Price

Interviewed users describe a significant decline in heroin quality alongside the
increased availability at 100 pounds per gram, a price that is reported to have
remained stable throughout all five phases of the Shetland heroin scene.

11.5.4.5

Changes in the Nature of the Heroin Scene:
Increasing Physical Morbidity

As a consequence of the rise in addiction levels and the overall worsening of individuals’ health, interviewees describe a greater visibility of physical morbidity in
heavy, regular users.
Besides a commonly affirmed increase in intravenous heroin use, very risky
and dangerous injecting patterns are said to have expanded perceptibly. Consequences
seemingly included a rise in drug use-related fatal emergencies from none to up to
one per year and a spread of hepatitis C.

11.5.4.6

Transformations Within the Heroin Use-Related Value System:
Urban Tendencies?

Overall, interviews suggest a close connection between the expansion of the
Shetland heroin scene and far-reaching changes within the heroin use–related
value system. Regarding intravenous drug use, the view of injecting as a cool and
cost-effective means of taking heroin appears to partly have replaced the previously
prevailing declining attitude. Besides this, the old school edict of avoiding introducing intravenous use to novices and young people appears to have lost
ground. Furthermore, patterns of irresponsible, especially hazardous intravenous
heroin use and selfish, egotistical behaviour have apparently become relatively
tolerable amongst heavy heroin users. Causally involved in the changing of values
and norms seem to be Shetlanders and mainlanders who had had previous contact
with heroin scenes in British cities or had served time in prison (‘prison connection’).
The latter is reported to have grown in influence as, due to the vast upsurge in heroin
supply and general loss of secrecy, more dealers are getting arrested. Both contact
to urban scenes and the ‘prison connection’ seem to promote the awareness and
adoption of criminal and antisocial – or junkie – manners and behaviours that are
imported to the island. Altogether, these changes appear to indicate a certain trend
towards commercialisation and urbanisation within the Shetland heroin scene.

11.5.4.7

The Mainland Heroin Trend Manifesting Itself in Shetland

Concerning the transitions and developments of the heroin culture during the commercial
peak, interviews again suggest a time-delayed manifestation of the British/global

288

11 Summary of Part II

heroin use trend in Shetland. Interviewees state a similar course having been
observable in England and Scotland in the mid- and late 1980s. On the one hand, the
global heroin use trend has to all appearances heavily impacted on the island heroin
culture. On the other hand, rather than adopting one to one the characteristics
participants regard as typical in urban heroin subcultures, the manifestation of
the Shetland trend seems strongly influenced by the peculiarities of Shetland.
The island’s geographic isolation, its small size and population, its relative prosperity,
and low crime quota may have given the scene its final shape, accounting for criminal
and violent conduct hitherto having largely been absent.
11.5.4.8

The Downfall of the Commercial Peak

Due to the general loosening of the original old school control norms regarding both
supply restrictions and concealment of heroin-related activities, the two main dealers
are claimed to finally have lost control over the heroin scene. Apparently, the police
had monitored their activities for a long time before finally managing to arrest
the younger one and thereby putting the commercial heroin market on hold in early
2004. The remaining dealer, despite curtailing his heroin trade activities immediately,
is stated to have been caught several months later.

11.5.5

The Current Fragmentation

11.5.5.1

Disruption of Commercial Supply and Underground
Turn of the Heroin Scene

Different interviewees explain how with the young dealer’s arrest the police exerted
a major influence on the heroin scene. They annihilated the commercial supply and
drove the subculture far underground, thereby radically reducing their power to
influence it.
As a consequence, the secrecy in which heroin use and trade were originally
embedded was apparently reactivated, and many users began consuming on their
own or with solely a few select friends they trusted.
Furthermore, the heroin supply is claimed to have returned to the previously
prevailing cliquey structure of small group supply supplemented by limited amounts
of heroin dealt commercially by several different people. Overall, the subculture
experienced a fragmentation regarding its internal organisation of dealers and users.
While participants agree that the scene’s general perceptibility and detectability
by the police and the public have subsided significantly, estimations regarding the
number of people continuing to use heroin diverge. Some claim there has been a
return to only a few persons using, while others suggest little reduction in the actual
user numbers, although the momentary extent of use.

11.6 The Current Heroin Using Trend in Shetland

11.5.5.2

289

Availability, Accessibility, and Quality:
Reductions in Levels of Addiction and Overall Use

Interviewees present the radical reduction in heroin availability and accessibility as
the most significant consequence of the cessation of commercial sale. Almost all
participants agree that the extent of use has declined immensely. Similar agreement
is found concerning the notable reduction in the levels of addictive heroin use
patterns. Many people seemingly regained control over the sometimes severe
physical and psychological dependence and infirmity they developed during the
commercial peak. The externally imposed access limitation seems to function as a
safeguard against the prevalence of heavy, addictive using styles. This effect seems
further strengthened by the overall fear of police and public attention.

11.5.5.3

Quality of Heroin

With respect to the quality of the heroin supplied during the current fragmentation
in contrast with that of the commercial peak, participants tend to state an obvious
improvement when purchased through small group supply. When obtained from the
local small-scale dealers, however, a general change for the worse is reported due to
the heroin being even more adulterated with cutting agents than beforehand.

11.6
11.6.1

The Current Heroin Using Trend in Shetland
Impact of the Heroin Scene’s Momentary
State on User Circles and Groups

Interviews suggest that diverse users and user circles have been very differently
affected by historical changes in the Shetland heroin scene. Heavy and especially
addicted users appear significantly more affected than occasional consumers by
the state of the heroin scene and, in particular, the market. Moreover, whether
someone relies on the island supply or arranges their heroin demand personally
seems crucial in this context. The original crew apparently provides an example
of a largely self-sufficient user circle relatively independent of the local market.
Occasional consumers probably increase their using frequency slightly in times
when more heroin is available. In contrast, the style of heroin use adopted by members
of the old school user clique seems fairly impressionable by occurrences within
the local heroin scene and market. Many report themselves to have developed
more or less severe heroin addictions during the commercial peak that ended with
the supply restrictions of the current fragmentation.

290

11.6.2

11 Summary of Part II

Continuing Commercialisation and Urbanisation?

Generally, participants state that during the commercial peak, many people began
consuming heroin and that possibly just as many ceased using again when the drug
stopped being easily and freely available. Considering the national movement
towards heroin, however, the current decline may just be temporary. Hence, the
scene might be subject to recurring commercial loops, whose patterns depend
on various local, national, and global occurrences and developments, respectively.
This assumption seems particularly likely when considering the continuing movement towards heroin use, injecting as well as commercial and urban-style norms and
conduct seemingly persisting to underlie the subculture’s topical state.

11.7

The Community-Minded Spirit of the Shetland
Heroin Scene

The general mentality and hence value system of the island heroin scene prevailing
at a certain time apparently changed significantly throughout the five eras the
subculture traversed. The interview analysis demonstrated that influence and
weight of the scene’s community-mindedness and norms and manners related to
this spirit varied strongly between the individual stages. The central aspects of
the respective overall tendencies are sketched briefly in the following.
During the early days, users seem to have been bonded by an ideational using
philosophy. For this reason, the communal project of sharing an extraordinary
social experience seemingly constituted the superordinate intention that determined
motivations and patterns of use and supply. Interviewees agree about the scene
having consequently been very small, exclusive, and principally problem-free in
this period.
Throughout the era of the old school, community-minded principles are stated
to have remained a very central mentality feature within the scene. However, with
users, who previously had been using primarily in addicted, intravenous styles, the
subculture now needed to be consciously controlled to maintain its unproblematic,
undercover state. For this purpose, community-minded values and associated
pro-social using and dealing behaviours were now reinforced intentionally with the
aid of strict norms and rules enacted by the dealers.
In the subsequent era of contained commercialisation, with a centralised,
commercial supply system, a significantly larger using population, and greater
numbers of people with addicted use, the necessity of stringently followed control
rules became even more essential. Now pro-social, community-minded manners
seemingly fulfilled the function to stabilise the commercial market system. Nonetheless,
the internal balance of the scene and its relatively unobtrusive integration in the
Shetland society could still be maintained.

11.7

The Community-Minded Spirit of the Shetland Heroin Scene

291

To all appearances, this changed during the commercial peak. Social inclinations
amongst dealers and users appear to largely have made way to commercial, selfinterested motivations. Now, the main intention of the dealers’ seemingly was to
make as much profit as possible and of many users to gain maximum amounts of
heroin for their personal use. With rising addiction levels and the loss of the previous control norms, the overall community-minded spirit of the subculture was virtually undermined. Consequently, the scene started to develop problematic tendencies
and became noticeable to the public.
As a result, the two main dealers were eventually arrested and the scene took
on a fragmented structure of many different user groups and circles organising
their own heroin supply. Although, the scene did not resume its previous overall
community-minded spirit, the atmosphere within the individual user groups is
described as determined by a decisively greater level of community-mindedness
than during the prior era. However, as opposed to the early days, the motivation to
resume pro-social manners might at this time be the need of others to assist in
arranging for one’s own heroin supply rather than the desire for a communally
shared social experience.

Part III

Community-Mindedness and
Self-regulation in Drug Cultures

Chapter 12

Community-Mindedness and Self-regulation
in Heroin Scenes in the Scientific Literature

12.1

Community-Minded Orientation

When assuming that the differences between the Shetland heroin scene and ‘typical
urban heroin scenes’ are above all explicable in terms of its prominent communityminded orientation, urban heroin scenes should consequently exhibit a significantly
lower degree of community-mindedness. In order to investigate this matter, the scientific
literature regarding heroin use and heroin-using subcultures was examined thoroughly
for the general degree of community-mindedness. Degree is understood in terms of
a range with a strong sense of community-mindedness at one end and principally
none at the other. The literal term ‘community-mindedness’, or otherwise an expression
corresponding to the concept as understood in this book, does not occur in the drug
use–related literature. Hence, normative and behavioural aspects indicating this
mentality feature have been searched for. As it became obvious, the phenomenon
had hitherto neither been clearly conceptualised, nor was the relationship between
pro-social, caring and exclusive, controlling behaviours explicitly addressed. Alfred
Adler, who contends that a strong community spirit typically leads to a high degree
of social control, has already been cited in Part II, Sect. 7.3. The dichotomous
definition, as employed in the present book, embraces this causal relation as the two
sides of the same concept that are interdependent. As pointed out by a Shetland
policeman, every location-specific aspect of the Shetland Islands has its two sides,
and the other side of community-mindedness is social control (Stallwitz 2007).
When discussing the outcomes of the literature examination below, communitymindedness is identified by mention of one or more of its defining aspects.
Within the scope of the comprehensive literature review, three qualitative investigations concerned with heroin subcultures in urban areas struck as being particularly
relevant. All of the three studies, which have already been introduced briefly in
Sect. 2.6 of Part I, elaborate crucial aspects of community-mindedness in a detail
that allows comparisons with the present Shetland study. They were conducted in
different countries and at sites of very diverse nature, namely, in the harbour city of

A. Stallwitz, The Role of Community-Mindedness in the Self-Regulation of Drug
Cultures: A Case Study from the Shetland Islands, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3861-4_12,
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

295

296

12

Community-Mindedness and Self-regulation in Heroin Scenes…

Rotterdam, the Netherlands (Grund 1993), the small industrial town of Norrköping,
Sweden (Lalander 2003), and the business and banker city of Frankfurt, Germany
(Kemmesies 2004). With approximately 587,939 (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek
2009), 122,000 (Lalander 2003), and 659,021 inhabitants (Statistische Ämter des
Bundes und der Länder 2007), respectively, Norrköping is by far the smallest place.
Whereas Grund and Lalander examine primarily habitual heavy heroin consumers
from varying socio-economic backgrounds, Kemmesies’ study is exclusively
concerned with controlled, socially integrated drug users from bourgeois milieus.
The dissimilarity of countries and places, the inclusion of heavy and controlled
heroin users, as well as the disparate date of conduction regarding Grund’s research,
increases the validity and expressiveness of conclusions. This case is further
strengthened by the reports of all three studies being presented in very detailed and
elaborate book formats.
The manifestation of the community-minded mentality aspect within the Shetland
heroin subculture becomes apparent when applied to concrete behavioural and
structural concepts. Hence, its extent, appearance, role, and function within the
scope of the heroin-using subcultures investigated by Grund, Lalander, and
Kemmesies cannot be explained in isolation but need to be discussed in relation to
the respective subcultural nature and structure. As far as inferences are feasible on
the basis of the provided information, the three studies are therefore presented with
regard to the most relevant similarities and differences in their micro-social particularities, that is, their features, social network, and general mentality including
the prevailing norms and rules. These aspects are subsequently compared to those
of the Shetland heroin scene. Of the three, Grund’s research bears the greatest
resemblance regarding the density and theoretical abstraction of the data analysis
and interpretation and the integration of the analysed and interpreted data into an
explanatory theoretical model of drug use. Therefore, the relevant aspects of his
ethnographic investigation will be employed as a starting point.

12.2 Grund (1993): Drug Use as a Social Ritual – Functionality,
Symbolism, and Determinants of Self-regulation
On the basis of ethnographic interviews with, and observations of heroin users in
Rotterdam, Grund details several themes centrally involved in the formation
and development of the social structures within heroin subcultures. The majority
of his study participants stated daily and habitual use, but only 23% declared injection to be their main route of administration; 77% reported primarily smoking
the drug. Von Aarburg has emphasised the great differences in ingestion modes
amongst habitual heroin users across countries. For example, he compares
the Netherlands, where the relationship between heroin smokers and injectors in
1998 was 3–1, to Switzerland, where the relationship in the same year was vice
versa; 1–3.96% of Grund’s sample also reported consuming cocaine. Interviewees
were aged between 25 and 36 and most were male (86%).

12.2

Grund (1993): Drug Use as a Social Ritual – Functionality…

297

Grund contends that the universal, human desideratum for social relations in
terms of warmth, interaction, solidarity, and (group) identity represents a fundamental drive in the emergence of heroin subcultures. He explains that situations
of social drug use provide the potential to generate feelings of togetherness, solidarity, and identity and thus to gratify such needs. Thereby, the communal
consumption of the drug functions as a ‘social lubricant’ (cf. Kay: ‘glue’ in Part II,
Sect. 8.2.4, p. 204) or ‘ritual binding mechanism’. The prerequisite for satisfying
a need fulfilment constitutes a substantial harmony in interests and ‘an agreement upon certain recognized values’ (Radcliffe-Brown 1952), which Grund
regards as given amongst most heroin users. Through the common interest of drug
use, the endeavour to gratify the basic social needs, and a shared set of values,
which include a positive attitude towards heroin and specific styles of use, a heroinusing community, that is, subculture, is formed. Due to the illegal, stigmatised status
of the shared activity, comprehensive secrecy of the subculture is required since it is
fundamentally important for its survival. However, the upholding of far-reaching
secrecy will partly conflict with the goals of attaining and using drugs, particularly
amongst habitual and dependent users.
The motivation to fulfil the basic human desire for social interaction and solidarity
on one side and the want for drug use on the other urge consumers to harmonise
their conflicting needs and aspirations. These needs and aspirations are therefore
integrated into normatively regulated social behaviour. Consequently, drug use is
integrated in a subcultural set of rules and rituals that ultimately aim at the preservation
of the subculture. In line with Grund’s account, the majority of such rules, rituals,
and values is implicitly enacted and seldom explicitly spoken about.
Amongst his study participants, Grund found that the majority purchased their
heroin (and other drugs) at so-called house addresses, partly inhabited, partly
vacant flats. House addresses are described to function not only as locations for
drug business but also as ‘pub-like’ socialising places where drugs can be used
and friends can be met and made. Typically, house addresses are organised and
run in accordance with ‘house rules’ that ensure undisturbed and harmonious
drug trade and intake. Restricting the number of people present is reported to be a
common rule to increase the dealer’s ability to control the situation, to maintain
a low profile and to facilitate a harmonious, friendly atmosphere. Although users
known to the dealers seem to enjoy general access advantages, unknown users are
also reported to be in a position to purchase drugs. By restricting the number of
users per dealing occasion while permitting basically everyone who is interested
and willing to comply with the given rules to partake, the regulations seem similar
to those of the commercial peak phase.
At the time of the study, the Rotterdam police were apparently well aware and
informed of many house addresses and related activities. However, according to
Grund’s report, they tolerated their existence as long as they remained unobtrusive
and did not attract public attention. The relative tolerance on the part of the police
towards the existence of a low profile heroin scene is reminiscent of the way the
Shetland police apparently ‘turned a blind eye’ to the existence of the small, secretive,
and socially non-disruptive heroin subculture between the 1980s and mid-1990s

298

12

Community-Mindedness and Self-regulation in Heroin Scenes…

(cf. Part II, Sect. 8.3.3). Interestingly, Spunt asserts similar police tolerance concerning the contained, street-level heroin markets in New York throughout the 1970s
(2003). He states that during this period, very little police intervention interrupted
the functioning of the markets.
According to Grund, the most explicit social ritual within the subculture represents
the sharing of drugs, which is fundamentally based on the rule of ‘share what you
have’ and could be designated as a ‘natural ritual’ (Collins 1989). The sharing rule
serves to provide mutual assistance and counteracts the occurrence of withdrawal
symptoms in physically dependent users when drugs or money are scarce. It also
creates a special bond, fosters trust, and smothers conflicts between users, which
again reinforces the group identity and the stability of the subcultural social structures (Sandoval 1977). Simultaneously, in- and out-groups are defined (Becker 1963),
and adverse side effects of drug use are counterbalanced (Young 1971; Zinberg
1984). Although Grund also speaks of in- and out-groups, these labels seem to
imply less strict exclusiveness than they do in the Shetland study. He maintains
that drug sharing represents a universal feature of drug subcultures including both
occasional and heavy users (cf. Sandoval 1977). The description of the sharing
ritual is very much reminiscent of the Shetland-typical ‘bouncing off each other’
(cf. Part II, Sect. 7.3.3.2, p. 167): Users take turns giving and taking in relation to
their respective drug or money situation whereby an ultimately equalised balance is
aimed at.
As a further manifestation of the sharing rule, Grund describes the common
ritual of getting together in groups of two and more friends or sometimes acquaintances in order to obtain the maximum amount of drugs possible, since quantity
and price are inversely related. He refers to this practice as ‘pooling money’ (p. 118).
This ritual exhibits a similarity to the ‘small group supply’ described with regard to
the present study (cf. Part II, Sect. 7.3.3.2).
By breaching the sharing rule, by denying access despite the possession of
sufficient amounts of drugs, or by repeatedly asking for drugs without returning the
favour, users can lose status and obtain a bad reputation within the subcultural
network. Severe breaches or irregularities Grund refers to as ‘junkie behaviour’.
Similar dynamics are also reported by the participants of the Shetland study
with regard to island users behaving in an antisocial or sordid way. The historical
perspective of the Shetland scene shows that the exact definitions of breaches are
determined by the respective era and its associated values, norms, and rules. Moreover,
norms and rules vary across the sub-scenes and groups of one era.
Consistent with Grund, the sharing balance between users is determined
considerably by the overall availability of a drug and an individual’s access to it.
In accordance with the author’s argument, scarcity fosters selfishness. Therefore,
the users who tend to exhibit the highest ethical standards are those whose lives
show a stable structure and who have easy access to drugs. With respect to the
Shetland situation, this hypothesis needs to be modified. This assumption seems to
apply to times when heroin was in general widely available, many people were
using and addiction rates were high. However, in eras when only a few, exclusive
groups were consuming heroin and supply usually took place in a non-commercial

12.3 Lalander (2003): Hooked on Heroin: Drugs and Drifters in a Globalised World

299

fashion, the limited availability seems instead to have contributed to high levels of
community-mindedness and the scene’s overall stability.
Apart from restricted access to heroin, Grund presents severe addiction, intrusive
police intervention, and a lack of a structured life as factors that can impair social
coherence and the realisation of mutual care (pp. 247–251). The first two aspects
also seem to have affected the degree of overall community-mindedness in the
Shetland heroin scene during the commercial peak and the current fragmentation.
The third seems to apply to the Shetland situation only to a minor degree, as will be
illustrated later on.
Shetland and Rotterdam heroin users equally mention the option to buy drugs
‘on tick’. In both studies, such privileges appear particularly prevalent amongst
users with special trusted relationships to dealers, a phenomenon also found in
interviews with incarcerated drug dealers and users (Coomber 2003). ‘Being special’ or ‘belonging to the golden people’ has been reported to significantly increase
a user’s accessibility to heroin in Shetland (cf. Part II, Sect. 7.3.2.3, pp. 164–165).
Grund points out that some users ‘do almost everything’ to gain privileges such as
drugs on credit or for free. This reflects the attitude of the ‘skag slags’ as described
by one Shetland interviewee (cf. Part II, Sect. 6.7.4).
Similar to Shetland heroin users and in contradiction to conventional wisdom
(cf. Harding and Zinberg 1977), Grund asserts that apart from a small minority,
Rotterdam heroin users hardly tend to engage in criminal conduct with the exception of drug dealing (pp. 242–243). He explains this to be related to the ‘Dutch
conditions’: The police often tolerate drug business transactions whereas they
largely prevent other types of acquisitive crime by measures such as intensified
property protection. As also relevant in this context, he views the general decline
of bodily fitness gradually becoming more noticeable in the ageing heroin-using
population.
Grund’s notion of social contact, warmth, and solidarity being exemplified by the
sharing ritual seems to correspond largely to the pro-social side of the communitymindedness concept. His accounts of in- and out-groups and the sanctioning of
behaviour that is incompatible with the subcultural norms and rules indicate a sense
of social control and exclusion. Thereby evidence is provided also for the social
control side of the concept. Hence, Grund’s results suggest the existence of communityminded attitudes and behavioural styles amongst urban, heavy drug users.

12.3

Lalander (2003): Hooked on Heroin:
Drugs and Drifters in a Globalised World

Ten years after Grund (1993), Philip Lalander published his investigation that is
likewise based on ethnographic interviews and observations within a heroin-using
subculture. He describes the aim of his study as exploring the logic and rules of the
subcultural world surrounding a drug that is characterised by both stigmatisation
and life-threatening properties. His 25 participants – all referring to themselves as
being addicted to heroin – are aged between 17 and 30 and include 18 men and seven

300

12

Community-Mindedness and Self-regulation in Heroin Scenes…

women. Most interviewees report injecting as their main route of administration
and thereby differ from Grund’s sample.
What does Lalander say with respect to the role and function of communityminded attitudes and demeanours as well as related norms, rules, and rituals within
the subculture of his sample? Lalander determines from his interviews, that the
secrecy concerning the social world of the subculture and all associated activities
plays a central role. Similar to Grund, he points out that due to the illegal and
stigmatised status of heroin, the encompassing scene has to be concealed carefully
in order to ensure its survival and to avert stigmatisation of its members. Hence,
subcultural members need to remain ‘invisible’ (p. 100), that is, behave unobtrusively and avoid perceivable signs of physical deterioration. States of severe
addiction should therefore be prevented. The fear of social stigmatisation and arrest
by the police and the consequent importance of secrecy are of central importance
not only amongst the participants of the Rotterdam but also of the Shetland study.
Here, it needs to be born in mind that the degree of secrecy maintained by users and
dealers varied between eras.
Apart from this basic functional component, secrecy also holds a fundamental
meaning for the subculture’s social structure, mentality, and atmosphere. Lalander
compares the subculture to a societal cave accessible only to members of the collective. This exclusiveness creates a strong in- and out-group effect, and the feeling of
togetherness amongst the in-group is enhanced (cf. Goffman 1959/1974). Inside the
cave, the option is given to jointly create a problem-free existence of a harmonious
family without conflicts and expectations from each other.
According to Lalander, this secretive condition promotes a strong tendency
to ritualise subcultural activity: On a functional level, rituals aim to control drug
use regarding adverse effects (cf. Jackson-Jacob 2001) and the development of
addiction. On a symbolic level, rituals strengthen the bonding aspect of the collective
experience. This experience is further intensified by the scarcity and exclusiveness
of the mythologized good ‘heroin’.
For a subculture to operate successfully, it needs internal order, coherence, and
structure (cf. Douglas 1970), which are achieved and maintained by its members’
adherence to what Lalander calls a ‘grid’ of values, norms, and rules (pp. 58–59).
The grid serves to ensure trust in each other and the system, to govern interaction
between users, and to regulate social relationships and the subcultural hierarchy.
The combination of norms, rules, and rituals promotes smooth and warm togetherness,
which Lalander designates as ‘the cosiness of heroin use’ (pp. 49–50; pp. 52–53;
p.56). This spirit can be created through, for example, ‘flat sitting’: The ritualised
consumption of heroin, performed collectively and exclusively in the flat of a
subcultural (in-group) member provides the opportunity to take off one’s ‘mask’
and be oneself. Through using drugs together, users show each other more of their
true, naked selves (p. 50). This allows them to feel very close to each other. Lalander
underlines that drug users are not different from any other human beings in the
sense of ‘liking to get cosy’ with each other (p. 50). This statement is reminiscent of
Grund’s supposition of the universal human need for social warmth, solidarity, and
interaction described above. The commonly described ritual of ‘collecting money’

12.3 Lalander (2003): Hooked on Heroin: Drugs and Drifters in a Globalised World

301

for group orders also bears similarities to Grund’s and thus the Shetland observations
(cf. ‘pooling money’ and ‘small group supply’, respectively). Typically, the collectively
obtained heroin is consumed on group occasions, such as during sessions of
‘flat sitting’.
Besides protecting the survival, the social structure, and the functioning of the
subculture, the grid also preserves a friendly, social atmosphere. This atmosphere
permits the generation of the desirable ‘cosy’ feeling between user mates, which
seems to correspond to the pro-social aspects of the community-minded spirit.
The tendency to create mythologies around the ‘exclusive commodity heroin’ as
well as the ‘cosiness of using heroin’ both remind of the ideational heroin consumption within many user groups in Shetland throughout the 1980s, the ‘original crew’,
as well as other occasionally using groups at the present time. In this respect, the
impression is given that an ideational and persistently warm social underpinning of
group heroin use is most likely to occur when using patterns remain casual and
controlled. When, however, addiction becomes an issue within a user group, the
playfulness often tends to be smothered, as heroin use starts becoming a ‘serious
business’. Nonetheless, the preservation of social norms, such as solidarity and care
for each other – that is, community-mindedness – and the overall collective spirit, is
frequently upheld. These values only seem to decrease when heroin becomes a
‘serious individual business’, and users begin to prioritise selfishness over social
norms. This becomes more likely when addiction rates begin to escalate.
Rules explicitly outlined by Lalander include ‘not fixing a virgin’, that is, assisting
a novice in their first heroin use, not selling to underage persons, not informing
on other members of the subculture, and antisocial behaviour in general (p. 92).
Some Norrköping heroin dealers apparently stick to dealing exclusively to addicts,
thus radically minimising the risk ‘of fixing a virgin’. Moreover, if a member’s drug
use becomes too heavy, the person is sanctioned by exclusion from the subculture,
as the secrecy and internal balance of the collective are threatened. Lalander explains
that for ‘doing drugs with honour and style’ (pp. 85–110), that is, adhering to norms
and rules of the grid and thereby living up to the code of honour of the subculture,
users are rewarded with a high subcultural status and consequently a positive
self-image. As long as the individual interests and goals do not prevent the enactment
of the ‘grid’ or the set of social rules, norms, and sanctions, then the overriding
group goals will have priority and the subculture can maintain its internal order and
function as a whole.
The central significance of upholding a sophisticated set of values, norms, rules,
rituals, and sanctions in regulating social relationships, preserving the smooth
operation and ultimately homeostasis of the subculture can be found in all three
studies. The norms and rules outlined by Lalander partly show a striking similarity
to the values and regulations of the ‘old school users’, which radically lost influence
during the commercial peak era.
The functioning of the grid and thus the maintenance of a companionable, social,
and friendly spirit within the heroin scene is threatened, Lalander asserts, when
many subcultural members simultaneously increase their heroin consumption and
develop an addiction (cf. Young 1971). For many, the costs of drug use start exceeding

302

12

Community-Mindedness and Self-regulation in Heroin Scenes…

their incomes and heroin becomes an extremely limited commodity. The consequently
unsatisfied demand starts challenging the subculture’s social bonds, the solidarity
attitude, the social order, and thus the subculture’s homeostasis. According to
Grund’s hypothesis, the restriction in availability of heroin is the actual cause of the
threat to the subcultural homeostasis. Lalander, on the contrary, regards the situation
as more complex. He contends that when the rule system that serves the regulation
of using patterns and social relationships is abandoned, the trust, essential for the
preservation of the grid, is affected or even destroyed. When the grid is weakened,
users begin to follow their own rules and selfish impulses while interacting with
each other. The combination of the addiction-related strong urge for heroin in many
members, the generally disproportionate scarcity of heroin, and the overall weakening
of the grid, induce an overriding selfish and dishonourable spirit in the subculture.
This trend is further reinforced by a shift from smoking to injecting, since a syringe
cannot be shared in the same way as a foil. On the one hand, injecting is associated
with the risk of hepatitis or HIV infections and, on the other hand, equitable sharing
becomes difficult. The ‘social pastime becomes serious individual business’ (p. 66)
or, as expressed by Svensson, the collective project turns into an individual one
(1996, 2000). Consequently, the ‘group’s intersubjective transcendence’ is threatened,
the social bonds lost and life within the subculture, with its original aim to provide
a space of freedom, becomes socially unpleasant (p. 67).
In the Shetland study, this internal order has been referred to as ‘internal
balance’. Its maintenance can be regarded as having lasted throughout the first
three eras – the early days, the era of the old school, and the period of contained
commercialisation – before it disintegrated in the commercial peak and was
apparently regained in parts during the current fragmentation.
All in all, Lalander’s study results provide many repetitions of what has already
been outlined by Grund and in the context of the Shetland study. Grund allocates the
motivation for treating each other in a community-minded style primarily to the
universal human need for social closeness. Similarly, Lalander attributes importance
and relevance to the human desire to get ‘cosy’. However, he presents the enactment of
community-minded manners to the universal and ultimately essential need for a congruent and honourable self-image. A means to this end constitutes following the grid.

12.4 Kemmesies (2004): Between Intoxication and Reality – Drug
Use in the Bourgeois Context1
In contrast to his two predecessors, Uwe Kemmesies’ investigation predominantly
relies on semi-structured interviews with 11 occasional, controlled heroin users,
who all report bourgeois living situations and above-average levels of education.

1

Translated by author, original title: Zwischen Rausch und Realität – Drogenkonsum im bürgerlichen
Milieu.

12.4 Kemmesies (2004): Between Intoxication and Reality…

303

Participants are aged between 21 and 50 with an average age of 30. Two-thirds are
male and one-third female. Some interviewees describe restricted phases of heavier,
less controlled using patterns, but never complete loss of control over their lives.
Apart from a few limited periods in some interviewees’ accounts, no one states
having ever needed heroin psychologically or physically. Quite the reverse, the
descriptions of typical using patterns exhibit a high adaptability regarding financial
costs and risks in general.
From the interview accounts, Kemmesies infers that amongst groups of socially
and economically well-established, well-integrated, and controlled heroin users,
the consumption of heroin tends to carry the meaning of dissociating oneself from
the mainstream culture. Such occasional heroin users he allocates to the ‘selfactualisation milieu’ (‘Selbstverwirklichungsmilieu’, p. 273), which is characterised
by lifestyles that oscillate between different ‘spheres of everyday aesthetics’.
These spheres embrace, for example, domains of classical, rock, and other music,
art, philosophy, and different types of action, such as the use of an illegal, deviant,
and stigmatised drug-like heroin. Typically, everyday life of individuals belonging
to this milieu involves swings back and forth between conventional and unconventional social worlds, whereby the sufficient and satisfying fulfilment of conventional
roles is principally prioritised. Conventional roles refer to areas of life such as
job or education, family, friends, and hobbies. Kemmesies asserts that within the
subcultures of the bourgeois, controlled heroin users interviewed for his study, drug
consumption represented an expression of intensive social interaction determined
by a respectful, warm, social, that is, community-minded atmosphere.
Kemmesies’ elegantly cultivated illustrations and explanations of a bourgeoisbohemian heroin subculture seem to be comparable to the user circles of the two
older occasional heroin users of the Shetland study. To refer to the use of heroin
as an ‘ontological experiment’ (cf. Part II, Sect. 7.2.5.1, p. 154) would also match
the context illustrated by Kemmesies. The impression is conveyed that amongst
bourgeois heroin users, to which group the two older occasional users could also be
allocated, the consumption of heroin constitutes a carefully planned, very consciously enacted, and stylish social activity.
Kemmesies asserts that the conscientious integration of heroin use into their lives
while preventing clashes with other areas of life principally suffices as a measure to
maintain controlled and occasional using patterns. Hence, explicit control rules,
such as those described by Grund, Lalander, and the author of the present study
would not be necessary. If the most implicitly adhered rule would be formulated
explicitly it would read: Only use heroin in your leisure time and in such a way that
it does not interfere with any other aspects of your life. Other more im- than explicitly
followed rules refer to an optimal using setting or the achievement of the maximum
possible pleasure gained from the heroin-induced intoxication. Accordingly,
caution is taken regarding suitable consumption doses and adequate conditions
regarding set and setting (cf. Zinberg 1984).
Generally, the using frequencies within the sample remained below the risk of
developing physical addiction or losing control over using patterns. However, a few of
the participants affirm for a limited period to have used more intensely than they

304

12

Community-Mindedness and Self-regulation in Heroin Scenes…

felt they should have to maintain order in their lives. Still, after some time, these
users regained mastery over their heroin use without the aid of treatment, and they
could avoid an actual loss of control over their lives. Characteristically, patterns of
consumption showed a high ‘elasticity’ with the risk of being detected, spending too
much money, or impacting negatively on one’s life always considered (pp. 266–267).
For some interviewees, phases of abstinence or even complete abstinence resulted
from a variety of different factors or a combination of these: The just mentioned
deterrents could become too great and outweigh the benefits, loss of interest in the
heroin high or loss of touch with heroin-using people could occur. Moreover,
Kemmesies asserts that many heroin users reduce or stop the use of the opiate and
of illegal drugs in general as they become older. Climbing the career ladder, starting
a family, or having to live up to other increased responsibilities can be decisive in
this context (cf. Winick 1962; Chen and Kandel 1995; Sifaneck and Kaplan 1995;
Bachmann et al. 1997; Golub et al. 2004; Parker 2005). They begin to ‘settle into their
transformed lives’ and ‘arrange their drug use with’ the changed responsibilities.
By and large, these regulations apply to all of the four occasional Shetland users.
Variations exist across users as well as individual lives with respect to rules being
ex- and implicitly abided by: The oldest man describes a phase in his life when he
used more frequently than he typically did throughout his using career. During this
time, he had to take conscious care not to develop a physical or psychological
dependence. This period resembles the ‘temporarily losing and subsequently
regaining control’ described by some of Kemmesies’ participants. For the two younger
men, the situation always seemed to be that friends would occasionally invite them,
and ‘not looking for heroin’ was a sufficient rule that prevented them from using
more than they could easily control. Like some of Kemmesies’ interviewees, one of
the two younger men lost touch with the subcultural context in which heroin and
other drugs were used and consequently stopped using. The woman ceased and did
not resume her use after an aversive, deterring experience.
Although amongst the Shetland users the most and greatest congruencies and
intersections with Kemmesies’ study participants are clearly found in the occasional
users, the accounts of the socially well-integrated and employed heavy users
also show many parallels. All of them state having gone through phases when
they felt they could not continue consuming heroin habitually while fulfilling the
responsibilities of their job, education, and social and family life. Whereas two men
state having regained control over their heroin use and lives on their own initiative,
the others sought help at the Shetland drugs project.
With respect to secrecy measures, the participants of Kemmesies’ study are
depicted as taking very similar precautions to the bulk of users in Grund’s, Lalander’s,
and the author’s study. Kemmesies points out that the social visibility of drug use
generally depends on the degree of stigmatisation and illegality of the substance.
Hence, the actually observable and anticipated reactions of the social environment
strongly determine the style of handling heroin use, purchase, and sale: The more a
person has to lose in terms of job and status, social relationships, and other important
areas in life, the more secretive they will handle their heroin involvement. The same
proposition has been made by the author in Sect. 7.2 of Part II.

12.5

Self-regulation of Heroin Use and Heroin-Using Subcultures

305

Another parallel to the Shetland and therefore the Rotterdam and Norrköping
study is found with respect to ‘small group supply’ and ‘small-scale dealers’.
Kemmesies’ asserts that the occasional users of his study largely engage in these
types of heroin transactions. Amongst Grund’s and Lalander’s participants,
small group supply and small-scale dealing constitute common but not the only
kinds of drug transactions. Similarly, this applies to the Shetland interviewees,
whereby during the first and the last documented era – the early days and the current
fragmentation – these business styles were seemingly the only trade styles.
Kemmesies explains that amongst his interviewees, heroin trade and use is confined
to small circles of trusted friends and acquaintances and performed in secretive,
hidden, and private societal niches in order to minimise the social visibility and
the risk of detection. He describes the non-commercial collective orders of the
small groups that have also been described in similar ways by Grund, Lalander, and
the author of the Shetland study. In addition, he underlines that the heroin dealers
within the bourgeois milieu are, apart from selling drugs, law abiding, socially
integrated individuals. Interestingly, Grund provides comparable illustrations concerning the hardly criminally involved members of the semi-open heroin subculture
he investigated, although most used daily and habitually. With their heavy using
styles and their affiliation with a semi-open heroin scene that partly functioned as a
community of purpose rather than of ideational social objectives, this subculture
corresponds to the stereotype of a criminally associated, urban heroin scene.
In contrast to the other three investigations, Kemmesies’ focus lies more on user
circles and individual users than on the overall subculture. This might be explicable
in terms of the micro-social activities within scenes of occasional heroin users
occurring more on a small group level than on a subcultural level. The reason seems
to be that, apart from purchasing heroin, many occasional, socially integrated heroin
users distance themselves from the overall scene in order to avoid contact with less
controlled or criminally active consumers. Motivations are typically protecting
both their own using control and the stability of their social integration. Hence, they
tend to be more active at the ‘peripheral edge of the scene’ (cf. occasional user
Christian cited in Sect. 7.3.2.1 of Part II, pp. 162–163).

12.5

12.5.1

Self-regulation of Heroin Use
and Heroin-Using Subcultures
Scenes of Occasional Users

As has been described, the occasional heroin users in Kemmesies’ examination
controlled their opiate use by abiding to the partly implicit, partly explicit rule of
using heroin only during leisure time and in a way that does not interfere with any
other areas of life. Relative to the person’s overall life priorities, heroin use is
usually given a subordinate position. Since these consumers largely avoid developing

306

12

Community-Mindedness and Self-regulation in Heroin Scenes…

addictive patterns of use and consequentially, self-oriented, egoistical styles of
interaction, community-minded manners can usually be preserved without significant
problems. Therefore, the internal order and homeostasis of the sub-scene tend to
be relatively immune to threats from ‘within’ (cf. Lalander 2003, p. 58). External
threats, such as detection by the social environment or the police are minimised
by consciously and carefully maintained secrecy. Since all drug business is usually
hidden and takes place only on an occasional and quantity-restricted basis, the visibility of the scene is typically reduced to an unnoticeable minimum. These guidelines correspond to the accounts given by the four occasional users of the present
study (cf. Part II, Sect. 7.2.5).

12.5.2

Scenes of Heavy, Habitual Users

The internal equilibrium of subcultures of heavy, habitual heroin consumers, as
presented by Grund and Lalander and the author of the present study concerning,
for example, groups during the contained commercialisation and particularly the
commercial peak, appears considerably more fragile. Grund developed a feedback
model of a circular reinforcement chain, explaining under which conditions the selfregulation of drug use can successfully be achieved: Drugs need to be available in
sufficient amounts to satisfy users’ demands; otherwise, users will become ‘fixated
on obtaining drugs’. This fixation inhibits the formation of norms, rules, rituals, and
sanctions related to community-mindedness and control, hence causing subcultural
members to adopt selfish ‘junkie manners’ (cf. Sect. 8.5.7.6, Part II). Thus, self-regulation requires the maintenance of, in social terms, high ethical standards that
depend on the relative stability of a user’s life structure. According to Grund, the
adherence to pro-social rules and rituals, the availability of sufficient amounts of
drugs, and a stable life structure are the three elementary components permitting
control over the use of heroin and all other illicit drugs. The homeostasis of the surrounding subculture depends on the degree to which its members successfully selfregulate their drug use. That a user is forced to engage with criminalised social
structures through which he (involuntarily) comes into contact with uncontrolled
users is considered by Grund to be a fundamental problem with the illegal status of
heroin. Furthermore, consumers have to deal with stigmatisation and ostracism,
which also affect the stability of their life structure.
With respect to the necessity of a stable life structure, the cultural norms should
be taken into account. According to a Shetland drugs worker, the ‘extreme contrast
of mad and uncontrolled partying and organised, together working life’ is a characteristic of the lifestyle of many Shetlanders. To a certain extent, ‘living life on the
edge’ with excessive poly-substance use seems to constitute a Shetland norm
(Stallwitz 2007, p. 261). Such a lifestyle may therefore destabilise a Shetlander
considerably less than it would destabilise someone in a more abstinence-oriented
culture. Hence, the level of life structure stability required for self-regulated, controlled heroin use seems to be influenced by the norms of the wider culture.

12.5

Self-regulation of Heroin Use and Heroin-Using Subcultures

307

Furthermore, it has been shown that in Shetland, during the eras of the early days, the old
school users, and the contained commercialisation, the externally restricted heroin availability contributed significantly to the overall control of the island heroin
subculture. If in an open, commercial market system, such as the heroin market in
Rotterdam at the time of Grund’s study, a temporary heroin shortage occurs, the
effect may negatively affect the stability of the surrounding subculture. However, in
a relatively closed, planned economy, such as the first three heroin eras in Shetland,
the effect of limited heroin availability appears to have a stabilising effect.
Lalander refers to the feeling of a ‘harmonious family life’ (see above), exemplifying
a community-minded spirit, as an illusionary notion. This view might be created
through the fact that the nature of the specific subculture, within which most of
his participants apparently lived and acted, progressed from initially cosy, social,
and honourable (community-minded) to largely self-oriented and antisocial. For the
majority of his interviewees, the gradual moral degradation concerning behaviours
related to the subcultural social network seems to have represented the norm.
However, such a progression cannot be seen as universally valid, as shown by various
groups of Shetland heroin users including the original crew, certain crowds of
employed, heavy users, and many cliques of occasional users. To all appearances,
numerous members of such groups have significantly contributed to maintaining the
subcultural equilibrium over a period as long as two decades. Whereas the balance
was upheld during the eras of the early days, the old school users, and the contained
commercialisation, it clearly broke down during the commercial peak. The destabilisation of this equilibrium is thought to have begun as early as during the era of
contained commercialisation. From Grund’s specific perspective, such equilibrium
tends to exist only within subcultural factions rather than in the overall heroin
subculture. Moreover, he pictures its nature as relatively fragile and susceptible to
external disturbances and ruptures, such as police intervention, heroin scarcity, or
the accumulation of many users with greatly unstructured lives.

12.5.3

The Role of Rituals

The performance of rituals further strengthens not only the community-minded
ethos but also the regulation of the subculture and individual heroin use. Rituals
play an important role in the social interaction of subcultural members, especially
during drug use and trade. The significance of rituals in controlling drug use situations
has been demonstrated empirically and is well documented in the scientific literature
(Zinberg 1984; Grund 1993; Strieder 2001; Weber et al. 1997). In their study on
young people, the rave culture, and the associated use of drugs (primarily ecstasy,
amphetamines, cocaine, and cannabis), Moore and Miles give drug use rituals an
even greater significance (2004). Like other authors, they present drug use rituals as
essential in regulating patterns of drug consumption. Additionally, Moore and Miles
conclude on the basis of their qualitative findings, that young people can counterbalance

308

12

Community-Mindedness and Self-regulation in Heroin Scenes…

the multifaceted requirements of everyday life through the systematically structured
dynamic of drug use rituals in the pre-club, club, and post-club setting. Moreover,
they can create an arena for themselves in which they can experience stability in an
ever changing, undependable world. In the context of religious research, the regulating
function of rituals also seems to apply. McCullough and Willoughby found
that treating certain goals as ‘holy’, significantly increases self-control and selfdiscipline. It also regulates impulses in general and alcohol and drug use in particular
(2009). The internalisation of specific rules of conduct plays a crucial role. Therefore,
engagement in organisations that adhere to certain ideals presumably also strengthens
the self-control of atheists and agnostics. This proposition can also be transferred
to the Shetland study demonstrated by the respective rituals of various user
groups that have been outlined in Part II. Particularly detailed accounts are provided
concerning the ideational settings in relation to the cliques of the two older occasional users (cf. Part II, Sect. 7.2.5) and the early heroin users in the 1970s and
1980s (cf. Part II, Sect. 8.2).

12.5.4

Conclusions on the Role of Community-Mindedness
in the Self-regulation of Heroin Use and Scenes

As has become obvious through the comparison of the four studies, communitymindedness and homeostasis within drug subcultures seem to entertain a mutually
dependent relationship: The community-minded spirit constitutes both a prerequisite
for maintaining the internal equilibrium and is a consequence of heroin users interacting within an internally balanced subculture. Without a superordinate collective
ideal, control over a subculture becomes very difficult or even unachievable. However,
within an internally balanced scene regulated by a sense of community, members
tend to naturally treat each other in pro-social, caring ways. This behavioural
style and the corresponding attitude result from abiding by the relevant implicit or
explicit social rules that are aimed at preserving the social foundation and thereby
the overall subculture. An internally balanced heroin scene can exist in a socially
integrated, unobtrusive way.
Thus, a causal chain can be determined: Internal homeostasis and societal
integration of a heroin subculture depend largely on the existence of an overarching
community-minded ethos. This ethos again relies on two other fundamental
components: the carefully maintained and thorough secrecy regarding all heroinassociated activities of users and dealers and restrictions on customers and supply
amounts enforced by dealers. The more closed the market of a heroin culture is,
the more exclusive and controlled its nature and memberships will be. Consequently,
the higher the levels of community-minded interaction between users, and users
and dealers are, the more likely internal order and societal integration will be
maintained.
Young has pointed out that the social structure of a heroin subculture, if socially
cohesive and fed the necessary information, has the potential to control and counteract

References

309

the risks and undesirable effects of drug use (1971). Therefore, the socialisation of
novices according to the ‘lore of drug use’ by experienced, typically older users is
necessary (p. 33). The transmission of the lore of drug use, that is, the norms and
rules related to safe and enjoyable drug use, from older to younger generations of
users can be disturbed or even prevented by a rapid increase in heroin users.
Consequently, the morality of the community-minded spirit can be subverted creating
a state of anomie. Anomie refers to the lack or ineffectiveness of normative
social regulations (Deflem 2007) that escalates to lawlessness and is characterised
by deficient societal integration within the superordinate social structure. In accordance with Young’s argument, anomic drug using situations can also occur when an
individual is isolated from the subculture, a drug is newly introduced and no
adequate norms and rules have yet been developed, or when a harsh social reaction
disintegrates the originally viable subculture. With respect to the Shetland situation,
an enormous increase in heroin users during the profit-oriented market system of the
commercial peak seems to have interrupted the transmission and maintenance of
norms and rules of social cohesion, control, and secrecy. After the repressive
enforcement by the police, the overall heroin scene disintegrated into the current
fragmentation, which lacks social cohesion and a superordinate spirit of togetherness and community-mindedness. Lucchini already emphasised these coherences
in 1985. He points out that the fragmentation of a drug scene resulting from legal
intervention or the massive influx of addicted users leads to a significant increase
in drug use and addiction and aggravates individual and social problems. He provides the example of the fragmentation of the heroin scene in Zurich in 1983 after
which the number of deaths caused by overdose rose spectacularly. The aggravation
of heroin use–related problems after fragmentation the author attributes to the discontinuation of drug use–related social norms and rules previously practised within
the scene.
By analysing the social organisation of drug markets and the dynamics involved
in their emergence, the formation of the nature and internal structure of a heroin
subculture can be further clarified. In this context, the theoretical analysis of UK
drug markets and distribution systems, and their respectively different nature and
internal structures are highly informative (cf. May et al. 2007; May and Hough
2004; McSweeney et al. 2008).
In a review of the literature concerned with the study of illicit drug markets,
Ritter found that the definition of drug market varied according to the theoretical
approach taken (2006). Within the scope of this book, ‘drug market’ refers to the
social structures within which drug trade–related activities are performed. ‘Drug
scene’ or ‘subculture’ embraces both the market structures and any drug use–related
social structures, including associated behaviours and actions.

References
Bachmann, L. G., Johnston, L. D., & O’Malley, P. M. (1997). Smoking, drinking and drug use in young
adulthood: The impacts of new freedoms and new responsibilities. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

310

12

Community-Mindedness and Self-regulation in Heroin Scenes…

Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Free Press.
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. (2009). Bevolkingsontwikkeling; regio per maand, May 2009.
Retrieved October12, 2009, from http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/
Chen, K., & Kandel, D. B. (1995). The natural history of drug use from adolescence to mid-thirties
in a general population sample. American Journal of Public Health, 85, 41–47.
Collins, R. (1989). Towards a neo-Meadian sociology of mind. Symbolic Interaction, 12(1),
1–32.
Coomber, R. (2003). There is no such thing as a free lunch: How “freebies” and “credit” operate
as part of rational drug market activity. Journal of Drugs Issues, 33(4), 939–962.
Deflem, M. (2007). Anomie. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology. Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Douglas, M. (1970). Natural symbols. Explorations in cosmology. London/New York: Routledge.
Goffman, E. (1959/1974). The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Pelican Books.
Golub, A., Johnson, B. D., Dunlap, E., & Sifaneck, S. (2004). Projecting and monitoring the life
course of the marijuana/blunts generation. Journal of Drug Issues, 34, 357–384.
Grund, J.-P. C. (1993). Drug use as a social ritual: Functionality, symbolism and determinants of
self-regulation. Rotterdam: IVO Reeks.
Harding, W. M., & Zinberg, N. E. (1977). The effectiveness of the subculture in developing rituals
and social sanctions for controlled drug use. In B. M. DuToit (Ed.), Drugs, rituals and altered
states of consciousness. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.
Jackson-Jacob, C. (2001). Refining rock: Practical and social features of self-control among a
group of college-student crack users. Contemporary Drugs Problems, 28(4), 597–624.
Kemmesies, U. E. (2004). Zwischen Rausch und Realität: Drogenkonsum im bürgerlichen Milieu.
Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Lalander, P. (2003). Hooked on heroin: Drugs and drifters in a globalized world. Oxford/New
York: Berg/Oxford International Publishers.
Lucchini, R. (1985). Young drug addicts and the drug scene. Bulletin on Narcotics, 37(2–3),
135–148.
May, T., Cossalter, S., Boyce, I., & Hearnden, I. (2007). Drug dealing in an inner city town centre.
London: Institute for Criminal Policy Research.
May, T., & Hough, M. (2004). Drug markets and distribution systems. Addiction Research & Theory,
12(6), 549–563.
McCullough, M. E., & Willoughby, B. L. B. (2009). Religion, self-regulation, and self-control:
Associations, explanations, and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135(1), 69–93.
McSweeney, T., Turnbull, P. J., & Hough, M. (2008). The treatment and supervision of drug dependent
offenders: A review of the literature prepared for the UK Drug Policy Commission. London:
UK Drug Policy Commission.
Moore, K., & Miles, S. (2004). Young people, dance and the sub-cultural consumption of drugs.
Addiction Research & Theory, 12(6), 507–523.
Parker, H. (2005). Normalization as a barometer: Recreational drug use and the consumption of
leisure by younger Britons. Addiction Research & Theory, 13(3), 205–215.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1952). Structure and function in primitive society: Essays and addresses.
Glencoe: Free Press.
Ritter, A. (2006). Studying illicit drug markets: Disciplinary contributions. The International
Journal on Drug Policy, 17(6), 453–463.
Sandoval, M. C. (1977). Patterns of drug abuse among the Spanish-speaking gay bar crowd. In
B. du Toit (Ed.), Drugs, rituals, and altered states of consciousness. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema.
Sifaneck, S. J., & Kaplan, C. D. (1995). Keeping off, stepping on and stepping off: The steppingstone theory reevaluated in the context of the Dutch cannabis experience. Contemporary
Drug Problems, 22(3), 483–513.
Spunt, B. (2003). The current New York City heroin scene. Substance Use and Misuse, 38(10),
1539–1549.
Stallwitz, A. (2007). Heroin use in Shetland from the perspective of different local professionals.
Therapeutic Communities, 28(3), 256–272.

References

311

Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder. (2007). Regionaldatenbanken Deutschland:
Bevölkerungsstand am Stichtag 31.12.2007. Retrieved October 11, 2009, from https://www.
regionalstatistik.de/genesis/online/
Strieder, C. (2001). Kontrollierter Gebrauch illegalisierter Drogen: Funktion und Bedeutung des
Gebrauchs illegalisierter Drogen im gesellschaftlichen Kontext. Berlin: Verlag für Wissenschaft
und Bildung.
Svensson, B. (1996). Pundare, jonkare och andra. Med narkotikan som följeslagare. Stockholm:
Carlssons.
Svensson, B. (2000). Speedfreaks, junkies and others. In J. Fountain (Ed.), Understanding and
responding to drug use: The role of qualitative research (Scientific Monograph Series, Vol. 4).
Luxembourg: EMCDDA.
Weber, G., Schneider, W., Engemann, S., Gerlach, R., & Haves, W. (1997). Herausgewachsen aus
der Sucht illegaler Drogen. Berlin: Verlag für Wissenschaft und Bildung.
Winick, C. (1962). Maturing out of narcotic addiction. UN Bulletin on Narcotics, 14(1), 1–7.
Young, J. (1971). The drugtakers: The social meaning of drug use. London: Cox & Wyman Ltd.
Zinberg, N. E. (1984). Drug, set, and setting: The basis for controlled intoxicant use. New Haven:
Yale University Press.

Chapter 13

Explaining Drug Markets and Distribution
Systems

13.1

Open and Closed Drug Markets

Based on a series of empirical studies concerned with ‘hard’ drug markets in the
UK, May and Hough developed approaches to theoretically explain the nature and
structure of drug markets as well as the trigger circumstances leading to changes
and transitions (2004). Their findings and explanations are largely supported by the
findings of similar British and US American research, as will be demonstrated
below. Moreover, the empirical findings and the theoretical explanations will be
related to the outcomes of the Shetland study. According to May and Hough
(2004), the most prominent differentiator between illicit drug markets is their level
of ‘openness’ (also see Duffy et al. 2007; McSweeney et al. 2008). ‘Open markets’
are defined as being ‘open to any buyer, with no requirement for prior introduction
to the seller, and few barriers to access’. Closed markets, by contrast, are defined
by the norm that ‘sellers and buyers will only do business together if they know
and trust each other, or if a third party vouches for them’ (2004, pp. 550–551).
The degree of market openness can be understood on a continuum with ‘open’ at one
pole, ‘closed’ at the other, and numerous forms of gradations in between poles.
Corresponding with these definitions, the heroin supply system during the Shetland
era of the early days can be typified as clearly closed, during the era of the old school
as broadly closed, during the contained commercialisation as semi-open, during the
commercial peak as open, and during the current fragmentation as closed again.
May and Hough explain that the transition from an open to a closed market system
usually happens as a result of invasive police intervention, a proposition also
supported by other British (e.g. May et al. 2000; McSweeney et al. 2008) as well as
American drugs researchers (e.g. Curtis 2003; Spunt 2003; Brownstein and Taylor
2007). As a consequence of pressure exerted by the police, open markets typically transform into closed markets. The degree to which a market closes largely
depends on the extent of the threat born by the police. Johnson, Dunlap, and
Tourigny describe the evolution of the New York crack markets that changed from

A. Stallwitz, The Role of Community-Mindedness in the Self-Regulation of Drug
Cultures: A Case Study from the Shetland Islands, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3861-4_13,
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

313

314

13

Explaining Drug Markets and Distribution Systems

open to closed systems after intensive police intervention (2000). An early example concerning the sudden visible expansion of a heroin scene in a Dublin neighbourhood between 1979 and 1981 is provided by O’Kelly et al. (1988). O’Kelly
et al. trace the decisive fall in local heroin consumption rates after 1981 to the
combined effect of intensive police intervention, increased public awareness, and
expanded treatment options in the area. An alternative explanation is that the market (scene) went underground or shifted to another neighbourhood rather than vanishing (cf. Curtis 2003). Numerous authors have pointed out that ordinary police
interventions can transform but never fully eradicate illicit drug markets (Curtis and
Wendel 2000; Curtis 2003; May and Hough 2004; McSweeney et al. 2008). The
markets generally tend to become closed, underground, and hidden to increase the
level of internal control and hence become safer and more stable.
Similar transformations have been depicted regarding British drug markets
(e.g. Hamid 1998; Edmunds et al. 1999; May et al. 2001a, b). This dynamic also
applies to the Shetland heroin market that transformed from an open system during
the commercial peak to the closed system of the current fragmentation after the
capture of one of the major dealers.
A central stabilising characteristic of closed drug markets is that the seller and
buyer know and trust each other (Curtis 2003; Spunt 2003; May and Hough 2004;
McSweeney et al. 2008). The downside to this system for dealers can be the inability
to maximise profits. For users, the downside is limited access to limited products,
although these are usually of good quality. Nonetheless, empirical evidence suggests
that a great number of both sellers and buyers prefer closed markets due to the
significantly reduced risk of detection (May et al. 1999) and the generally very low
levels of violence (cf. Spunt 2003). Mutual trust and the secretive, underground
existence provide closed markets with considerably greater stability than visible,
commercial, and anonymous open markets. However, dependent users tend to push
for the accessibility of drugs ‘24/7’ in order to satisfy their cravings, an option not
feasible within the scope of closed markets (May and Hough 2004). This desire has
also been stated by some of the originally urban participants in the Shetland study
(cf. Part II, Sect. 6.8.1, p. 127). May and Hough claim that although dependent
users represent a very small percentage of the overall drug using population, the
extent of their use is so high, that they account for a very significant proportion of
all illicit drug sales (cf. ‘prop the whole thing up’, Part II, Sect. 7.3, p. 160).
The assumption that party and dance drugs, such as ecstasy, tend to be sold in
pubs and clubs where most of the illicit drug buying in the UK supposedly takes
place (Ruggiero and South 1995) is also supported by the Shetland findings (cf. Part
II, Sect. 5.2.4).

13.1.1

Social Network Markets

Closed markets have frequently been found to be organised as social network markets,
which are based on privately performed drug transactions between friends or

13.2

Recent Developments Within Drug Markets

315

fellows and might constitute the most popular kind of drug supply (May and Hough
2004; McSweeney et al. 2008). This supposition is exemplified by a report from the
Office of National Drug Control Policy in Washington, DC. According to this report,
heroin dealers are often older, heroin-using students, who sell to fellow students
they know (ONDCP 1997).
The above model of social networking markets corresponds to the commonly
described ‘small group supply’ structure amongst Shetland heroin users (cf. Part II,
Sect. 7.3.3.2). Across the different eras of the Shetland heroin scene, the prevalence
of this type of drug distribution differs. Presumably, its relative frequency was highest during the early days and the current fragmentation, although an estimate of the
absolute numbers remains inconclusive.

13.2

Recent Developments Within Drug Markets

Consistent with May and Hough, the capacity of illicit drug markets to adapt rapidly
has increased enormously due to the increase in mobile phone use since the 1990s.
Therefore, the authors view the findings of ethnographic drug market research conducted before the mid-1990s to be limited in their validity regarding the functioning
of today’s markets. This assumption is limited to street-based, open, or semi-open
urban markets. With respect to the Shetland heroin market, the rise in mobile phone
usage in dealing did not bring about such a significant change. The island heroin
market is described as always having been focussed on private, personal indoor
locations, such as dealers’ or users’ flats, and to have depended on phones that were
later replaced by mobile phones. May and Hough explain that the buyer now tends
to phone the seller according to which a meeting point is arranged (cf. Chatterton
et al. 1995; Edmunds et al. 1996; Hamid 1998; Curtis and Wendel 2000). Otherwise,
drugs are delivered to a private flat or another place by a ‘runner’ (distributor), a
delivery system outlined by a Shetland participant with regard to the era of the contained commercialisation and the commercial peak (cf. the client Gerry in Part II,
Sect. 8.4.4.3, p. 221).
The terms used in the cited literature and the Shetland study are clarified here:
In the literature, the retail level corresponds to the level of the respective mainland
suppliers (e.g. the Liverpool connection during the commercial peak). The distribution level corresponds to the level of the main dealers or dealer groups, and
‘runners’ are the equivalent of the Shetland distributors. The distribution level is
also often referred to as the ‘middle level’ (cf. May et al. 2001a, b; May and
Hough 2004; Pearson and Hobbs 2004; McSweeney et al. 2008) or ‘mid-level’
(Curtis 2003).
With regard to the crack, cocaine, and heroin markets in New York, the use of
home deliveries is presented as a relatively recent development (Curtis 2003), hence
possibly co-occurring with the emergence of this practice in Shetland.

316

13.3

13

Explaining Drug Markets and Distribution Systems

Different Market Systems

On the basis of different studies on UK drug markets, the existence of two major
types of drug distribution systems at the middle level with various gradations in
between have been suggested (May et al. 2001a, b; May and Hough 2004;
McSweeney et al. 2008):
• A highly structured pyramidical system (as during the contained commercialisation phase)
• A fragmented, non-hierarchical entrepreneurial market with minimal structure
(as during the current fragmentation period)
Corresponding to May and Hough (2004), in the early 1980s, many inner city drug
markets in the UK operated as closed, pyramidical markets with a top-down hierarchy
and several suppliers acting as a consortium. Control over the internal order of the
distribution structure was typically achieved with the threat of violence. Uncertainty
exists regarding the prevalence of the second model in the UK in the past and
both models at the present time (McSweeney et al. 2008). Notwithstanding, some
evidence implies a relatively recent shift to more open and entrepreneurial networks
of individuals without the traditional formal connections, norms, and values (cf.
Zhang and Chin 2003). Correspondingly, current drug markets have been referred to
as disjointed and fragmented, with the active players at all levels only having a
restricted overview of the wider market operations (Matrix Knowledge Group 2007).
The fragmented, free market system is characterised by several dealers working
independently. Violence may occur due to the lack of social cohesiveness and
commitment, rather than as a means of control. Apart from being caused by police
intervention, the transformation of markets can also be triggered by different
geographic, social, and economic changes and developments on the local, regional,
national, and global level (Curtis 2003; also see the ‘conditional matrix’ (Strauss
and Corbin 1998) presented in Sect. 3.4 of Part I).

13.3.1

Different Styles of Dealing Within a Market System

With regard to the actual style of drug trade at the middle level, Natarajan and
Belanger have distinguished four types of dealing systems (1998):
• Freelancers: small, non-hierarchical, entrepreneurial groups
• Family businesses: cohesive, clearly structured, groups with strong family or
social (added by the author) ties
• Communal businesses: flexible groups bound by a common tie
• Corporations: large, formal hierarchies with well-defined divisions of labour
According to these classifications, the supply structure during the early days
appears to have been that of a communal business and during the subsequent era of
the old school a combination existed of a family (without blood relationships) and
a communal business. The contained commercialisation period could be classified

13.3

Different Market Systems

317

as a socially oriented, relatively controlled corporation and the commercial
peak as a corporation, although how far the division of labour during the latter
era could be regarded as ‘well defined’ remains unclear. The freelancers seem
comparable to the small groups organising their own supply that apparently existed
throughout all five eras of the Shetland heroin scene and prevailed during the current fragmentation period.

13.3.2

Organisational Structure and Social Cohesion
of Drug Markets

May and Hough classify the organisation of drug markets in terms of the ‘twin
dimensions’ structure (degree of autonomy and hierarchy) and group (degree of
cohesion and communication) often applied in anthropological research (Douglas
1982; Rayner 1992; Tansey and O’Riordan 1999). Accordingly, strong group ties
with little structure tend to lead to communal or egalitarian markets (corresponding
with ‘communal businesses’ as during the era of the early days). Groups with a
pronounced structure lead to hierarchical groups (corresponding with ‘family businesses’ as during the era of the old school). Weak group ties with little structure lead
to individualist or entrepreneurial markets (corresponding with ‘freelancers’ as during the current fragmentation), and finally, groups with structure lead to hierarchical
markets (corresponding with ‘(large) corporations’ as during the contained commercialisation and the commercial peak) and well-organised ‘family businesses’.
The market organisation in compliance with these dimensions is shown in Table
13.1. The five eras of the Shetland heroin scene are classified accordingly.
It has been emphasised that friendship ties can be influential on both the retail
(Pearson and Hobbs 2004) and the distribution level (Akhtar and South 2000).
Scientific evidence suggests that hierarchical and entrepreneurial market structures
with weaker friendship ties bear a greater risk tolerance than communal structures
(cf. Dorn et al. 1998). This argument is also supported by the Shetland findings
when comparing the extreme control, caution, and secrecy exercised during the eras
of the early days and the old school with the big-scale dealing of the contained
commercialisation and especially the uncompromising wholesale supply of the commercial peak. During the two eras of corporate market systems, risk management
tended to be organised top-down by the main dealers.

13.3.3

Community-Minded Norms According
to Organisational Structure

As can be inferred from the table above, the greatest degree of a scene-overarching
community-minded ethos in terms of social care, control, and exclusiveness within
a heroin scene is possible when the underlying market system is one of high group
cohesion and low hierarchical structure. Such conditions existed during the early

318

13

Explaining Drug Markets and Distribution Systems

Table 13.1 Typologies of market organisation (Based on Schwartz and Thompson (1990),
complemented by the author)
Low group cohesion
High group cohesion
High structure
Isolated-opportunistic systems
Hierarchical systems
No strategic or tactical control over
Acceptance of risks if under
risks (commercial peak)
tactical control (contained
commercialisation)
Low structure
Individual-entrepreneurial systems
Communal-egalitarian systems
Acceptance of risks if they offer opportu- Avoiding of risks which tend to
nities (current fragmentation)
be shared (early days)

days in Shetland. The lowest level exists when the subculture relies on a system
characterised by low group cohesion and high structure, such as during the commercial peak era. Under such circumstances, users tend to focus on their own
interests, and space is created for the development of selfish norms (cf. Grund 1993;
Lalander 2003 discussed above). The extent of a superordinate community-minded
spirit is likely to be comparably low under the conditions of low structure and low
group cohesion, as during the current fragmentation. However, the level of group
cohesion and community-mindedness within the individual-entrepreneurial systems
(‘small groups’) can (at least partly) be as high, as the interviews with the Shetland
heroin users suggest.

13.4

Trajectories of Illicit Drug Markets

In contrast to the widespread belief that illicit drug markets are supply-led, several
British studies suggest they might rather be demand-led (cf. Parker et al. 1998). An
interactive, dynamic relationship between supply and demand seems most likely
(May and Hough 2004). Therefore, endeavours to reduce the supply often do not
lead to the intended aim of reducing the prevalence of drug use. Furthermore,
different authors have emphasised that drug markets and associated problems
can never be controlled effectively by police enforcement alone since they are very
flexible in adapting as described above (e.g. Coomber 2004; May and Hough 2004).
Apart from law enforcement, various other complexly interwoven socio-cultural,
economic, and geographic factors cause their continuous change, as has been demonstrated in the preceding sections as well as in Part II when portraying the empirical
findings of the present study. Therefore, May and Hough emphasise that the course
an illegal drug market will take in the next 5 or 10 years cannot be predicted reliably
(2004). Coomber points out that with the currently widespread scientific methods of
mapping drug markets only restricted knowledge can be gained regarding the future
trend of a specific drug market. Furthermore, he stresses the necessity to overcome
our common stereotypes regarding drug use, users, markets, and their interactions
(2004). Agar points out that no one quantitative or qualitative approach can be

References

319

sufficient when researching trends of heroin markets and scenes but that a variety
of many different sources needs to be consulted in order to obtain a comprehensive picture (1999).

References
Agar, M. (1999). How to ask for a study in qualitatisch. Qualitative Health Research, 9(5), 684–697.
Akhtar, S., & South, N. (2000). Hidden from heroin’s history: Heroin use and dealing within an
English Asian community – a case study. In M. Natarajan & M. Hough (Eds.), Illegal drugs
markets: From research to prevention policy. New York: Criminal Justice Press.
Brownstein, H. H., & Taylor, B. G. (2007). Measuring the stability of illicit drug markets: Why
does it matter? Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 90(Suppl 1), 52–60.
Chatterton, M., Gibson, G., Gilman, M., Godfrey, C., Sutton, M., & Wright, A. (1995). Performance
indicators for local anti-drugs strategies: A preliminary analysis (Crime detection and prevention
series, Vol. 62). London: Home Office Police Research Group.
Coomber, R. (2004). Editorial: Drug use and drug market intersections. Addiction Research and
Theory, 12(6), 501–505.
Curtis, R. (2003). Crack, cocaine and heroin: Drug eras in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, 1960–2000.
Addiction Research and Theory, 11(1), 47–63.
Curtis, R., & Wendel, T. (2000). Toward the development of a typology of illegal drug markets.
In M. Natarajan & M. Hough (Eds.), Illegal drug markets: From research to prevention policy.
New York: Criminal Justice Press.
Dorn, N., Oette, L., & White, S. (1998). Drugs importation and the bifurcation of risk. British
Journal of Criminology, 38, 537–560.
Douglas, M. (1982). Essays in the sociology of perception. London: Routledge, Kegan and Paul.
Duffy, M., Schafer, N., Coomber, R., & O’Connell, L. (2007). “It’s a social thing”: Cannabis supply
and young people. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Edmunds, M., Hough, M. & Urquia, N. (1996). Tackling local drug markets. (Crime prevention
initiative paper No. 80). Police Research Group: Home Office.
Edmunds, M., Hough, M., Turnbull, P. J., & May, T. (1999). Doing justice to treatment: Referring
offenders to drug services (Drugs prevention advisory paper, Vol. 2). London: Drugs Prevention
Advisory Service/Home Office.
Grund, J.-P. C. (1993). Drug use as a social ritual: Functionality, symbolism and determinants of
self-regulation. Rotterdam: IVO Reeks.
Hamid, A. (1998). Drugs in America. Gaithersburg: Aspen.
Johnson, B. D., Dunlap, E., & Tourigny, S. C. (2000). Crack distribution and abuse in New York.
In M. Natarajan & M. Hough (Eds.), Illegal drugs markets: From research to prevention policy.
New York: Criminal Justice Press.
Lalander, P. (2003). Hooked on heroin: Drugs and drifters in a globalized world. Oxford/New
York: Berg/Oxford International Publishers.
Matrix Knowledge Group. (2007). The illicit drug trade in the United Kingdom (Home office
online report, Vol. 20/07). London: Home Office.
May, T., & Hough, M. (2004). Drug markets and distribution systems. Addiction Research & Theory,
12(6), 549–563.
May, T., Edmunds, M., & Hough, M. (1999). Street business: The links between sex and drug
markets (Crime prevention and detection series paper, Vol. 118). London: Policing and
Reducing Crime Unit/Home Office.
May, T., Harocopos, A., Turnbull, P. J., & Hough, M. (2000). Serving up: The impact of low-level
police enforcement on drug markets. (Police Research Series Paper 133). London: Home
Office.

320

13

Explaining Drug Markets and Distribution Systems

May, T., Harocopos, A., & Turnbull, P. J. (2001a). Selling Sex in the city: An evaluation of a targeted
arrest referral scheme for sex workers in Kings Cross. London: DPAS/Home Office.
May, T., Harocopos, A., Turnbull, P. J., & Hough, M. (2001b). Serving up: The impact of low level
police inforcement on drug markets (Crime prevention and detection series paper, Vol. 133).
London: Policing and Reducing Crime Unit/Home Office.
McSweeney, T., Turnbull, P. J., & Hough, M. (2008). The treatment and supervision of drug dependent
offenders: A review of the literature prepared for the UK Drug Policy Commission. London:
UK Drug Policy Commission.
Natarajan, M., & Belanger, M. (1998). Varieties of drug trafficking organizations: A typology of
cases prosecuted in New York City. Journal of Drug Issues, 28(4), 1005–1026.
O’Kelly, F. D., Bury, G., Cullen, B., & Dean, G. (1988). The rise and fall of heroin use in an inner
city area of Dublin. Irish Journal of Medical Science, 157(2), 35–38.
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). (1997). Pulse check national trends in drug
abuse. Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy.
Parker, H., Aldridge, J., & Measham, F. (1998). Illegal leisure. London: Routledge.
Pearson, G., & Hobbs, D. (2004). ‘E’ is for enterprise: Middle level drug markets in ecstasy and
stimulants. Addiction Research & Theory, 12(6), 565–576.
Rayner, S. (1992). Cultural theory and risk analysis. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social
theories of risk. London: Praeger.
Ruggiero, V., & South, N. (1995). Eurodrugs, drug use, markets and trafficking Europe. London:
ULC Press.
Schwartz, M., & Thompson, M. (1990). Divided we stand: Redefining politics, technology and
social choice. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Spunt, B. (2003). The current New York City heroin scene. Substance Use & Misuse, 38(10),
1539–1549.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.
Tansey, J., & O’Riordan, T. (1999). Cultural theory and risk: A review. Health, Risk and Society,
1, 71–90.
Zhang, S., & Chin, K. (2003). The declining significance of triad societies in transnational illegal
activities. British Journal of Criminology, 43(3), 469–488.

Chapter 14

Historical Transitions of Urban Drug
Markets and Scenes

14.1

New York Heroin Culture

New York is the only place in the world where detailed ethnographic work exists on
the nature and historical developments of local heroin scenes (cf. Curtis 2003; Spunt
2003; Preble and Casey 1969; Feldman 1968). Although the empirical and theoretical work on British drug markets presented and discussed above provides important
and applicable information on the organisation of drug markets as well as the
dynamics involved in transitional processes, it lacks a comprehensive historical perspective. Further, it only touches upon a local, regional, national, and global analysis of the cultural, geographic, and socio-economic circumstances in which drug
markets are embedded. The existing British literature allows only partial understanding of the overall markets researched, as also pointed out by Ross Coomber
(2004). Furthermore, the exclusive focus on ‘market’ omits the social structures of
the scene, that is, all social activity beyond pure drug business as illustrated by, for
example, Curtis (2003), Spunt (2003), Preble and Casey (1969), and Feldman
(1968). The historical perspective of the Shetland study, illustrated in Part II, Chap. 8,
attempts to compensate for these shortcomings of the British drug literature.
In the following section, the progression of the New York heroin market and
scenes (as exemplified by different ethnographic investigations) will be described in
the relevant detail. Several reasons account for the importance attributed to the New
York research. On the one hand, the cited ethnography of heroin scenes in New York
represents basically the only research comparable in style and technique to the historical outline of the Shetland heroin scene as presented in Chap. 8. On the other
hand, New York is frequently reported as the city with the earliest and, for a long
time, the biggest open and illicit heroin subcultures (cf. Preble and Casey 1969;
Young 1971; Curtis 2003; Spunt 2003). In comparison, Shetland constitutes a location where heroin use and trade – especially in a widespread, notable form – started
relatively late and were always performed indoors. Regarding the geographic,
cultural, and socio-economic particularities, the huge metropolis of New York

A. Stallwitz, The Role of Community-Mindedness in the Self-Regulation of Drug
Cultures: A Case Study from the Shetland Islands, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3861-4_14,
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

321

322

14 Historical Transitions of Urban Drug Markets and Scenes

embodies a location that could hardly be more removed from the remote, small
island community of Shetland. New York is often referred to as trendsetting with
respect to cultural and subcultural developments, including drug subcultural innovations. Comparing the heroin scenes of these two extremely contrasting places has
the potential to arrive at far-reaching and generalisable conclusions about the nature,
structure, and historical transitions of heroin subcultures.

14.2

Heroin Markets and Scenes in New York

During the 1920s, New York was apparently the first location in which illicit heroin
markets and scenes formed (Spunt 2003). The typical American heroin user of that
time is described as being a young, white, male living in a New York slum neighbourhood (Musto 1987). World War II apparently put the New York heroin markets
on hold before extensive use was resumed in the 1950s (Spunt 2003).
In most parts of New York, heroin trade and use took place in a private, personal,
and often amicable manner throughout the 1950s and 1960s (Curtis 2003) that are
reminiscent of the family and communal businesses described above. In many
areas, drug use was restrained by social controls and a strong sense of communitymindedness, and heroin users apparently tended to be well dressed, educated, and
employed. Hence, the structure and nature of the market might be suggestive of the
era of the early days in Shetland and thereby of a global heroin trend that reaches
different locations at different times, as suggested by interviewees cited throughout
the empirical Part II (also see Bean 1994; The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2000).
According to other ethnographic studies, throughout the 1950s, heroin use was also
common amongst white teenage gang members and individuals involved in
organised crime (Cohen 1955; Preble and Casey 1969). The manifestation of the
trend obviously depends on the respective macro- and micro-social particularities
given in each case.
The 1960s and early 1970s are depicted as a period of widespread and increasing
heroin use and availability determined, amongst other factors, by the growing
involvement of diverse ethnic groupings (Spunt 2003). However, the extent of
heroin consumption appears to have remained relatively stable throughout the 1970s
and 1980s (Curtis and Wendel 2000).
In the ‘heroin project’, a 5-year ethnographic study of the New York heroin
scene, Barry Spunt illustrates the transformation of the heroin market from a relatively closed, contained market in the 1970s to an open, anonymous, profit-oriented
corporate supply system in the 1980s when a new type of heroin dealer emerged
(2003). As a result of the emergence of yet another new generation of young, mainly
socially integrated middle class, employed heroin users and the result of intensified
police intervention, the bulk of the market became closed again in the 1990s. Since
the 1990s, much of the supply is apparently performed through relatively small
social units with dealers and users who know each other and entertain companionable, trusting relationships, as in the ‘social network markets’ described by May and

14.2

Heroin Markets and Scenes in New York

323

Hough (2004). Use is often performed non-intravenously, occasionally, and casually.
More traditional clusters of homeless, nomadic users, who, in contrast to the new
young scene members, tend to be involved in petty acquisitive crime and prostitution are reported to coexist within different ethnic groupings. The historical course
of the New York heroin scene described by Spunt shows certain resemblances to the
developments of the Shetland scene in relation to the transition from a contained,
social, and closed market to an open, self-servingly oriented, commercial market
and the eventual shift to a fragmented social network market system.
In contrast to the relatively general sketch of the developments of the overall
New York heroin markets given above, Ric Curtis (2003) provides a detailed, thorough reconstruction of the historical trajectories and also contexts of the heroin,
cocaine, and crack scenes and markets in Williamsburg, a neighbourhood in
Brooklyn, New York (cf. Cornejo cited in Part I, Sect. 3.4.2, pp. 71–72).
Based on the findings of 20 years of ethnographic observations and in-depth interviews with drug users, dealers, and neighbourhood residents, he meticulously
describes how political, economic, cultural, and subcultural changes at the local level
determined and changed the heroin and cocaine scenes between the 1950s and the
late 1990s, and the crack scene between the late 1980s and the late 1990s. Aside from
local influences, he stresses the crucial impact of regional, national, and global forces
and the intertwining relationships of other drug scenes on the local heroin scene
(cf. conditional matrix by Strauss and Corbin cited in Part I, Sect. 3.4, p. 70).
Curtis claims that similar to most New York drug markets, the Williamsburg
heroin markets had been characterised by a closed socially and communally oriented
and controlled structure throughout the 1950s and 1960s. Transgressions against the
widespread social community norms were sanctioned by both the community and
scene members, thereby controlling and containing drug use (cf. the era of the early
days between the late 1970s and late 1980s).
As a result of various socio-economic changes, the community-minded sense,
both within the neighbourhood and the drug scenes, eroded and without the former
constraints, open street-level heroin and cocaine markets emerged in the area. The
previous community-minded spirit, social cohesion, and mutual concern as well as
the social sanctioning of deviant behaviour diminished, notably giving way to the
flourishing of commercially organised drug markets.
Following the ‘pivotal event’ of an extensive heroin shortage in New York in
1961, not only the heroin business but also using was shifted to the streets. Besides,
the consumption of heroin had gained a cool image amongst certain groupings. This
further discouraged the previous secrecy and promoted the spread of heroin. Through
the erosion of traditional control norms and the increase in commercial greed on the
part of the suppliers and dealers, the markets lost their former status of being virtually invisibly integrated into the local communities, and the police started to intervene heavily.
The early 1960s were characterised by fragmented distribution systems consisting of freelancers and small group and family businesses (cf. the era of the current
fragmentation). An enormous increase in the demand for heroin eventually led to
the emergence of large corporate models of heroin and cocaine distribution (cf. the

324

14 Historical Transitions of Urban Drug Markets and Scenes

era of the contained commercialisation), which grew practically undisturbed by the
police, who concentrated on the retail rather than the distribution level at that time
(Spunt 2003). The 1970s and 1980s were shaped by the development and spread of
harshly capitalist, commercial drug business systems without concern for the community, the consumer, or the dealers (cf. the era of the commercial peak). Crime and
violence rose, and community-minded ideals practically disappeared, a trend that
was also reflected in the change of customers. Benett, Dilulio, and Walters speak of
a breeding ground for a new generation of ‘super-predators’ (1996). On this foundation, crack markets emerged in the late 1980s that were characterised by an even
fiercer commercial and antisocial orientation as well as the abandonment of principally all control and regulation norms and rules. Curtis explains that after the popularity of crack had peaked in 1988, the new generation of youth was ‘fed up’ with
violence and ill health and turned away from crack. Furthermore, police interventions and gentrification had increased decisively in the area. Consequently, the end
of the large corporate heroin, crack, and cocaine businesses was heralded, and the
drug markets became, once again, largely closed, controlled, indoor, invisible, and
fragmented. Furthermore, Curtis suggests that supply and consumption rates
declined perceptibly (cf. the era of the current fragmentation).

References
Bean, P. (1994). The drug takers 1920–1970. In R. Coomber (Ed.), Drugs and drug use in society:
A critical reader. Kent: Greenwich University Press.
Benett, W. J., Dilulio, J., & Walters, J. P. (1996). Body count: Moral poverty…and how to win
America’s war against crime and drugs. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Cohen, A. K. (1955). The delinquent boys: The culture of gangs. Glencoe: Free Press.
Coomber, R. (2004). Editorial: Drug use and drug market intersections. Addiction Research and
Theory, 12(6), 501–505.
Curtis, R. (2003). Crack, cocaine and heroin: Drug eras in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, 1960–2000.
Addiction Research and Theory, 11(1), 47–63.
Curtis, R., & Wendel, T. (2000). Toward the development of a typology of illegal drug markets.
In M. Natarajan & M. Hough (Eds.), Illegal drug markets: From research to prevention policy.
New York: Criminal Justice Press.
Feldman, H. W. (1968). Ideological supports to becoming and remaining a heroin addict. Journal
of Health and Social Behaviour, 9(2), 131–139.
May, T., & Hough, M. (2004). Drug markets and distribution systems. Addiction Research &
Theory, 12(6), 549–563.
Musto, D. F. (1987). The history of legislative control over opium, cocaine, and their derivatives.
In R. Hamowy (Ed.), Dealing with drugs: Consequences of government control. Lexington:
D.C. Heath.
Preble, E., & Casey, J. J. (1969). Taking care of business. International Journal of the Addictions,
4(1), 1–24.
Spunt, B. (2003). The current New York City heroin scene. Substance Use & Misuse, 38(10),
1539–1549.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists. (2000). Drugs: Dilemmas and choices. Glasgow: Bell & Bain
Lmt.
Young, J. (1971). The drugtakers. The social meaning of drug use. London: Cox & Wyman Ltd.

Chapter 15

The British, Scottish, and Shetland Heroin
Trends in Numbers

15.1

The British Heroin Trend

In contrast to the USA, the first illicit heroin subculture in Great Britain is reported
to have formed only in the late 1960s in London with most users of that time being
male, skilled workers, aged between 20 and 34 (Young 1971; Stimson and
Oppenheimer 1982). Prior to this, heroin use and addiction had virtually exclusively
existed within the middle-aged upper society, such as doctors, who had effortless
access to heroin through their profession. Throughout the 1960s, the British heroin
scenes remained centred in London (Seddon 2008). The ‘heroin problem’, referred
to as a ‘mini-epidemic’, caused little concern (Seddon 2007, p. 64) and was in its
scope not comparable to the heroin outbreaks in some US cities from the 1940s
(Chein et al. 1964). Extent and risky intravenous patterns of use are described as
having stayed relatively stable. After the opiate had hitherto been consumed intravenously, in the late 1970s, the first cheap smokable heroin became available in
many towns and cities in England and Scotland. For the first time, heroin use spread
beyond the limits of London (Seddon 2007).
In the early 1980s, the first serious heroin outbreaks are documented for cities
such as Manchester, Liverpool, and Glasgow (Ditton and Speirits 1982; Seddon
2008). A novelty was the concentration on socio-economically deprived areas and
the serious involvement in acquisitive crime and dealing of many users, reflecting
earlier developments in the USA (cf. Chein et al. 1964). In Merseyside, the new
heroin users were mainly aged between 16 and 24 (Parker et al. 1987), 1% is reported
to have been below 16 (Seddon 2007). The new heroin users were younger than
those of the preceding generation. However, the age distribution apparently showed
great regional variations (Hartnoll et al. 1985; Parker et al 1987, 1988).
A second wave of significant rises in heroin use is documented to have taken
place in the mid-1990s, extending to new places of diverse sizes (Parker et al. 1998).

A. Stallwitz, The Role of Community-Mindedness in the Self-Regulation of Drug
Cultures: A Case Study from the Shetland Islands, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3861-4_15,
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

325

326

15

The British, Scottish, and Shetland Heroin Trends in Numbers

Some scientific evidence suggests that the average age of initiation had declined to
15 (Egginton and Parker 2000) and that most users began between the ages of 14
and 17 (Parker et al. 1998). From the mid-1990s, the appearance of crack alongside
heroin is also documented (Brain et al. 1998), leading policymakers to become seriously concerned about the heroin and the crack problem by the late 1990s (Seddon
2007). This second wave of substantially increased heroin use has been associated
with the foregone rave era that effected a relative ‘normalisation’ of illicit drug use
(cf. Parker et al. 1998; Parker 2005), a hypothesis also put forward by different
interviewees of the present study (cf. Part II, Sect. 8.4.1.1, p. 212). An association
between the global rave era and a subsequent increase in general heroin consumption
has also been discussed by other authors with regard to the UK (e.g. Shiner and
Newburn 1997, 1999; Pearson 2001; Hughes et al. 2006) and other parts of the
world, such as Sweden (Lalander 2003), China (Cheung and Cheung 2006), Russia
(Pilkington 2006) Australia (Duff 2003), and the USA (Moloney et al. 2008).
Both local professionals and interviewed heroin users suggest that Scottish drug
trends typically reach Shetland with delays of 3–6 (Stallwitz 2007, p. 265) or even
10–15 years, respectively (e.g. Part II, Sect. 6.10, p. 137 also see rural and locationspecific drugs research, Part I, Sect. 2.8). Seddon (2007) speaks of a ‘second wave
of heroin outbreaks’ in the mid-1990s that had reached a serious extent by the
late 1990s (p. 239). Thus, Shetland was presumably affected only by the second
wave with, compared to the rest of Britain, a delay of effectively about 5–8 years.
The British Crime Survey, a private household survey conducted in England and
Wales that since 1996 includes drug use, implies a relatively stable heroin and crack/
cocaine trend between 1996 and 2006 (cf. Roe and Man 2006). In this 10-year
period, the prevalence rate amongst 16–24-year-olds amounted to 0.2% for crack
and 0.4% for heroin in 1996. The rate peaked for crack in 2000 at 0.9% and for
heroin in 1998 and 2000 with each time 0.8%. It fell again to 0.4% for crack and
0.2% for heroin in 2005/2006. Concerning both crack and heroin use amongst
11–15-year-olds, National School surveys found even more stable prevalence rates
of approximately 1% for each year between 2001 and 2006 (NatCen/NFER 2007).
At 0.9%, the peak percentage for heroin was reached in 2003 and 2005. Seddon
emphasises the low percentages giving rise to only slight concern regarding the
overall drug problem amongst youth (2007). He points out that youthful consumption
of both crack and heroin tend to reach concerning levels and to become visible only
in socio-economically deprived areas (cf. Pearson 2001).

15.2

Statistical Information on Drug Trends in Shetland
Compared to Glasgow and Overall Scotland

An extensive and thorough review of the numbers and statistics on drug use in
Shetland has been carried out in order to quantitatively complement the developments of the heroin trend sketched on the basis of the qualitative user interviews.
Data sources include amongst others the Drug Misuse Statistics Scotland yearly

15.2

Statistical Information on Drug Trends in Shetland Compared to Glasgow…

327

published by ISD Scotland (Information Services Division Scotland), the annual
reports of CDT (Shetland Community Drug Team) 2003–2007, and the Scottish
School Adolescent Lifestyle and Substance Use Study (SALSUS) published every
2 years on the ISD Scotland website (http://www.drugmisuse.isdscotland.org/
publications/abstracts/salsus_national.htm). So far, national SALSUS reports have
been published for the years 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008. A local report for the
Shetland Islands solely exists for the year 2002. As already mentioned in Sect. 2.9
of Part I, CDT and the Shetland Alcohol Support Services fused into the Community
Alcohol & Drugs Services Shetland (CADSS). The annual report of CADSS for
2007/2008, however, provides significantly less detailed information on drug use
than the previous CDT reports. The results are compared to the corresponding
numbers and statistics of Scotland overall, and Scotland’s biggest city Glasgow,
renowned for its longstanding, extensive heroin use (cf. Seddon 2008). The review
covers a time span of 10 years in order to work with a period long enough to allow
the observation of potential trends. 1998 was chosen as the starting point, since
according to the user interviews heroin consumption began to spread significantly
from 1999. 2008 constitutes the last year for which information is available. Several
profound problems were encountered while conducting the review:
1. As indicated in Sect. 2.9 of Part I, the existing numbers are principally not only
too small but also too unreliable to expressively map a trend.
2. Percentages and numbers provided by CDT and ISD Scotland frequently do not
correspond. This might be caused by ISD Scotland exclusively reporting those
clients who completed the standardised SMR-23 form for new clients (see Sect.
2.9, Part I), whereas CDT also collects information about new clients, who do
not complete the form. In the year 2007/2008, for example, CADSS counted 88
new clients to the drugs services of whom only 46 filled in an SMR-23 form. In
order to allow comparability between overall Scotland, Glasgow, and Shetland,
only the numbers of those with completed SMR-23 forms are considered.
3. The information provided by CDT and ISD Scotland does not refer to exactly the
same individual variables each year. For example, 1-year CDT provides information on all illicit drugs used in Shetland and sometimes only on the main drug. In
some years, ISD Scotland provides numbers and percentages and sometimes
only percentages without the numerical base data. Sometimes, ISD Scotland
supplies information on the number of heroin users solely injecting and other
modes of ingestion and in other years only on the overall number of heroin
injectors.
4. For the years 1998–2002 as well as for 2008, ISD Scotland hardly considers
Shetland individually and, concerning most items, provides summarised numbers
for Shetland, Orkney, and the Western Isles. For these years, documentation was
probably too poor for meaningful individual numbers. However, summarised
information of this sort does not allow any conclusions regarding the developments at the individual locations.
5. In cases where ISD Scotland provides individual information for Shetland, the
reader often finds ‘z’ instead of a number. ‘Z’ indicates that the number is below

328

15

The British, Scottish, and Shetland Heroin Trends in Numbers

five and therefore considered too small to be shown. Such small numbers are
often the result of poor documentation or low service attendance rather than of a
changed trend in drug use.
The data related to the most central aspects of heroin use published by ISD
Scotland are discussed below, including the numbers of new clients, prevalence
rates of heroin and amphetamine use, injecting, sharing of injecting equipment, and
hepatitis C. Additional information is provided on levels of drug deaths and ages of
the onset of heroin use and of injecting. Where appropriate, the numerical and percentage data are supplemented with the qualitative information derived from the
previous study based on qualitative in-depth interviews with local professionals and
practitioners (Stallwitz 2007) introduced in Sect. 2.9 of Part I and information from
other sources. Furthermore, details of the European trend in heroin use and injecting
derived from the EMCDDA database are sometimes supplied.

15.2.1

New Clients

The number of new clients in Scotland overall peaked in 2005 at 14,332 and began
to fall again in subsequent years. In Glasgow, the number peaked a year earlier at
3,193. After having been relatively stable for 9 years between 1998 and 2006, they
began to descend again and reached 1,839 in 2008 (ISD 2010). The number of new
clients in Shetland in 1998 amounted to 43, experienced extreme variations over the
next decade, and at 45 in 2007 almost reached the starting point of 1998 again. As
mentioned in Sect. 2.9 of Part I, the strong variance between years, CDT attributes
to changes in services offered and levels of client confidence in local services rather
than to actual changes in the Shetland drug use trend (cf. Taylor 2006). A clear
increase is shown in total contacts to CDT services from 4,054 in 2004 over 9,675
in 2006 (CDT 2006) to 10,486 in 2007 (CDT 2007).
Since heroin constitutes the main drug of choice for most new clients, these
numbers provide evidence for the increase in heroin use broadly stated by interviewees of the present study. Moreover, CDT suggests a trend amongst particularly
young heroin users to seek help earlier, (CDT 2007; CADSS 2008) as well as the
gradual expansion of a state-dependent mentality amongst certain groups of
Shetlanders. The acceptability of surrendering responsibility for parts of one’s own
life to social welfare services has generally increased (Stallwitz 2007).

15.2.2

Prevalence of Heroin Use

According to the EMCDDA, time trends in the prevalence of opioid use across
Europe are difficult to estimate due to the limited numbers of repeated estimates and
the uncertainty surrounding individual estimates (EMCDDA 2009). In many

15.2

Statistical Information on Drug Trends in Shetland Compared to Glasgow…

329

European countries, including the UK, prevalence seems relatively stable, whereas
in other countries, such as Austria, slight increases are recorded. Compared to the
overall UK estimate of 10.19 per 1,000 population, the Scottish estimate of 15.39 is
significantly higher (Eaton et al. 2008).
The number of Scottish clients reporting heroin peaked in the year 2002 at 8,134
and subsequently fell to 7,047 in 2008. For Glasgow, the numbers showed a different
trend. Within the 10-year reporting period, the highest number is recorded for 1998
with relative stability following until 2005 and from then a sudden decline down to
888 in 2008. The Shetland numbers of clients reporting heroin use was at 3 at its
lowest in 2000, and at 36 at its highest in 2007 with many increases and decreases
in between, which again will largely be explicable in terms of the above-mentioned
factors independent of the actual local drug trend. Irrespective of such factors, the
numbers clearly suggest a growth in the number of clients reporting heroin consumption throughout the 10-year phase, which corresponds to the overall results of
the present study.
According to the local SALSUS report 2002 for Shetland, the prevalence rate of
heroin use in the total Shetland population of 23,090 was estimated to amount to 1%
or 231 individuals and 1% or 2 individuals amongst the 232 15-year-olds in the year
2000/2001 (Currie et al. 2003).
The widely stated rise in overall drug and especially heroin use (Taylor 2006;
CADSS 2008; Northern Joint Police Board 2008; Shetland Islands Council 2009) is
explained by many local practitioners in terms of an adaptation of the Shetland drug
trend to the opiate-based Scottish drug trend (Stallwitz 2007). Moreover, it is argued
that Shetland is being purposefully targeted by drug suppliers who see a captive,
geographically isolated market (The Times 18 August 2007). Heroin use and dependency amongst youngsters have been observed to have increased and cannabis use to
have decreased (Shetland Islands Council 2007; ISD 2007). Associations are suggested
between this trend and the current police focus of identifying possession of drugs. This
is thought to contribute to a ‘shortage of “softer” drugs’, such as cannabis – due to
odour and size relatively easy to detect – and the minimisation of harm reduction
options (Stallwitz 2007; CADSS 2008, 2009). This proposition has also been put
forward by several interviewees of the present Shetland study.

15.2.3

Age of Onset of Heroin Use

Of all Scottish clients reporting heroin use in the years 2006/2007 and 2007/2008,
1.2% and 1%, respectively, were under the age of 15 (ISD Scotland 2010). Most
heroin users were aged between 20 and 40 and over, with the 25–29-year-olds reaching the highest percentage (25% in both years). For Shetland, ISD Scotland does not
provide comparable figures. However, according to SALSUS 2002, 0% of Shetland
pupils aged 13 and 1% of pupils aged 15 state to have used heroin in the year 2002,
which compares to 1% of 13-year-old pupils and 0% of 15-year-old pupils in
Scotland overall in the same year (Currie et al. 2003). In correspondence with

330

15

The British, Scottish, and Shetland Heroin Trends in Numbers

SALSUS 2006, the Scottish percentages amounted to 1% and 2%, respectively, in
2005 and to 1% and 1%, respectively, in 2006 (Maxwell et al. 2007) with no information explicitly on juvenile heroin use in Shetland being available in each case.
Again, the small Shetland numbers reduce the validity of comparisons between
Scottish and Shetland figures. Nonetheless, youngsters in Shetland presumably start
using heroin at a similar age as those from Scotland overall.
Of new clients in Shetland under the age of 25 in 2006/2007, 80% reported heroin
use, 63% in 2007/2008, and 94% in 2008/2009. These percentages compare to 58%,
56%, and 51% in overall Scotland (ISD Scotland 2010).
According to the ‘Young People’s Alcohol and Drugs Service Needs Assessment
Report’ of February 2009, a small number of 16–18-year-old Shetlanders are using
heroin (SADAT 2009). A quick progression from initial smoking to injecting is
reported for most. A strong influence of older drug-using peers is described, and
young women are thought to be particularly vulnerable if their partners are older
men with a history of heroin use. Problems also arise in the tendency of young
people to use drugs chaotically. A rise in heroin use amongst young people, including teenagers, has been reported by interviewees of the present study as well. The
initiation of heroin use amongst women through their male partners has also been
mentioned; however, no details regarding the ages of both women and partners
were given.

15.2.4

Amphetamine Use

At 1,002 (12%) and 1,000 (11%), the Scottish numbers of amphetamine use amongst
new clients were highest in 1998 and 1999, respectively. The numbers fell in the
following years and amounted to 511 (4%) in 2008 (ISD 2009). Amphetamine use
amongst new clients in Glasgow basically corresponds to this trend. Amounting to
percentages between 36 and 47 in the years for which information is provided
(2004–2007), the Shetland figures suggest a much higher proportion of amphetamine use new amongst clients. Numbers vary between 12 in 2004 and 17 in 2007
(CADSS 2009).
Several interviewees of the present study have also stated notably high levels of
amphetamine use, especially amongst habited heroin users. Along these lines,
Young (1971) reports the consumption of large quantities of stimulants by individuals
with strong heroin habits in London, which he explains as a strategy to counterbalance the depressant effects of the opiate. As has also been affirmed by the interviewed heroin users, local practitioners contend that Shetland drug users replace
one drug with another in times of unavailability (Stallwitz 2007). Thus, many heroin
injectors shift to using amphetamines intravenously during periods of heroin shortages. Moreover, the widespread injection of amphetamines on the Shetland Islands
is likely to be encouraged by a similar British trend (DrugScope 2009) as well as the
geographical proximity to Scandinavia, where this particular pattern of drug use is
the most common in Europe (Day 1999; EMCDDA 2001).

15.2

Statistical Information on Drug Trends in Shetland Compared to Glasgow…

15.2.5

331

Intravenous Drug Use in the Previous Month

The EMCDDA reports a general trend away from injecting amongst new clients
entering outpatient treatment with some national and regional variations (2009).
Particularly in Eastern Europe, rates of drug injection remain high amongst
predominantly heroin users.
National estimates of injecting drug use in the UK suggest a rate of 3.95 whereas
the rate for Scotland has been estimated at 5.29, thus being significantly higher than
the national rate. In recent years, levels of injecting in the UK seem to have been
relatively stable (cf. Gemmell et al. 2004; Hay and Gannon 2006; Hay et al. 2009).
Percentages of injecting amongst new Scottish clients fell from 52% in 1993 to
33% in 1996 and rose again to 42% in 1999 (ISD Scotland 1999). After having
peaked in 2000 at 49%, levels of intravenous drug use dropped continuously to 29%
in 2008. An even more extreme drop is recorded for Glasgow where injection rates
fell from 49% in 1998 to 22% in 2008.
The absolute numbers of clients in Shetland reporting injecting in the previous
month were highest in 2002 and 2004 with 29 and 27, respectively. The other years
show great variations, such as 18 in 1998, 5 in 1999, 13 in 2000, and 22 in 2007.
Percentagewise, the proportion of injectors developed from 41% in 2002/2003 over
47% in 2004/2005, 48% in 2006/2007, and 42% in 2007/2008 to 59% in 2008/2009.
However, this information can only be interpreted adequately with the additional
aid of contextual information. The validity of the numbers and percentages also
reduces with their small sizes. The necessity of complementary qualitative data to
understand the context and consequently the developments becomes obvious.

15.2.6

Age of Onset of Injecting

According to ISD Scotland, in the year 2008, 3% of Scottish drug users started
injecting under the age of 15. The median starting age amounts to 21, which corresponds to the Shetland figure (ISD 2008). The youngest age in Glasgow, some other
Scottish areas, and Shetland was 12. Although interviewed heroin users had affirmed
a decrease in the initiation age of injecting, no concrete information had been
provided. The interviews were conducted in 2004, while 2006 was the first year for
which ISD Scotland documented injectors under the age of 15. Still, this phenomenon might have occurred earlier as especially very young persons are often not in
touch with any services.

15.2.6.1

Intravenous Heroin Use

Approximately 40% of heroin users entering outpatient treatment in Europe state
having ingested the drug intravenously (EMCDDA 2009).

332

15

The British, Scottish, and Shetland Heroin Trends in Numbers

With respect to reporting intravenous consumption of heroin, the Scottish and
Glasgow figures show some differences. The Scottish numbers steadily grew until
they peaked at 4,595 in 2003 and fell again to 3,422 in 2008. The Glasgow numbers,
in contrast, reached their peak in 2000 with 2,205 and declined to as low as 355 in
2008 (ISD 2004, 2007, 2009). The proportion of intravenous heroin users fell from
64% in 1999 to 40% in 2008. Similar declines are observable with regard to the
numbers of overall clients and overall heroin users amounting to 1,839 and 888,
respectively. The numbers of Shetland heroin injectors varied between as low as 4
(27%) in 2003, 18 (82%) in the following year, and 36 (apparently 100%) in 2007
(CDT 2003–2006; CADSS 2008, 2009). The overall proportion of injectors amongst
heroin using clients in Shetland is apparently higher than in Scotland overall or
Glasgow. Still, these numbers and proportions cannot be transferred to the overall
population of Shetland heroin users. The user interviews indicate that amongst all
island heroin users, clients only represent a small, extreme subgroup. Nonetheless,
in accordance with the user interviews, the numerical information suggests an
increase in intravenous heroin consumption.

15.2.6.2

Sharing of Syringes in the Previous Month

Rates of having shared syringes in the previous month reported by Shetland clients
differ greatly between years, as does the quality of the figures presented. Sometimes,
only percentages are provided, and at other times, the percentages do not correspond to the base numbers. In addition, information provided by ISD Scotland and
CDT often diverge greatly, as for 2006 where according to ISD Scotland, 43% of
injectors shared syringes and according to CDT only 21%. On the basis of the CDT
annual report for 2006, the majority of Shetland clients who inject do not share
needles and syringes. However, in 2006, 55% stated having shared spoons, water, or
filters, which is relatively high compared to the national rate of 42% in the same
year. Again, the expressiveness of these percentages remains unclear due to the
small numbers of injectors and the strong variations between years. Therefore, the extent
of people sharing injecting equipment mentioned by interviewees of the present
study cannot reliably be inferred from the available numbers and statistics.

15.2.6.3

Prevalence of Hepatitis C

Although local practitioners (cf. Taylor 2005; Roy et al. 2007; Stallwitz 2007) as
well as users interviewed in the present study express concern regarding the high
hepatitis C rates amongst Shetland drug injectors, rates published by CDT and ISD
Scotland are with one to two incidents in most years relatively low. Still, poor documentation might come into play here again, otherwise a certain proportion of clients
might not have been tested and, moreover, the dark figure of injectors not in drug
treatment has so far not been estimated. The overall number of hepatitis C–infected
injectors in Shetland provided by ISD Scotland (2008) amounts to 20. Therefore,

15.2

Statistical Information on Drug Trends in Shetland Compared to Glasgow…

333

the appraisals by local practitioners might be indicative of a serious issue. Hitherto,
no cases of HIV infections amongst drug users have been recorded, and rates within
the general population are estimated to be low (Taylor 2006; NHS 2008).

15.2.6.4

Drug Deaths

The Scottish numbers of drug-related deaths increased overall from 317 in 2003 to
455 in 2007. Between 1998 and 2007, the Shetland numbers varied between 0 and
2 (both in 2006 and 2007) also indicating an increase. In 2008, one death was
reported for Shetland (General Register Office for Scotland 2009). The concern
regarding a rising prevalence of drug use–associated deaths mentioned by interviewees is supported by these numbers. Here, the reduced impact of heroin use–related
control norms and rules, associated with the fragmentation of the heroin scene,
probably plays a role here (cf. Lucchini 1985).

15.2.6.5

A Comparison of Heroin Users in Shetland and in Scotland Overall

The head of the Shetland Alcohol and Drug Action Team, Sarah Taylor, suggests
that Shetland drug users consume a wider range of drugs and are more likely to
consume more than one drug compared to users in the rest of Scotland (SADAT
2006). She characterises typical CDT clients as using heroin and stimulants
especially at the weekend.
For the year 2006, the average CDT client is described as Shetlander, male, and
28.5 years old, who uses 7 g of heroin daily, which he injects in his arm (SADAT
2006). He started injecting at the age of 21. He uses prescribed and illicit benzodiazepines frequently and cocaine and/or crack monthly. Usually, he is not involved
in criminal activities apart from dealing, is employed or has been employed in
the previous year, and lives with his parents, relatives, or partner in stable
accommodation.
Although the strong trend towards youthful heroin use in Shetland is broadly
problematised, it has also been assessed as positive that young people tend to engage
with services more easily than older users, detoxify more quickly and are more
likely to achieve successful outcomes (CADSS 2009).
In this chapter, it has been demonstrated that the numbers of Shetland clients are
frequently too small to clearly and reliably show developments. However, even in
situations where the numbers are large enough to reflect trends, contextual information, preferably from qualitative data, is necessary for meaningful explanations of
the observable changes. The extreme decline in numbers of new clients and clients
reporting heroin use in Glasgow might possibly mirror changes in service provision
or other variables rather than a strong reduction in heroin use in the city. Again,
contextual information is of utmost importance to be able to fully comprehend the
numbers.

334

15

The British, Scottish, and Shetland Heroin Trends in Numbers

References
Brain, K., Parker, H., & Bottomley, T. (1998). Evolving crack cocaine careers: New users, quitters
and long-term combination drug users in NW England. Manchester: University of
Manchester.
CADSS. (2008). Annual report community alcohol & drugs services Shetland 2007/2008. Lerwick:
CADSS.
CADSS. (2009). Young people’s alcohol & drugs service needs assessment report, February 2009.
Lerwick: SADAT.
CDT. (2006). Annual report Shetland community drugs team 2005/2006. Lerwick: CDT.
CDT. (2007). Annual report Shetland community drugs team 2006/2007. Lerwick: CDT.
Chein, I., Ferard, D., Lee, R., & Rosenfeld, F. (1964). The road to H: Narcotocs, delinquency and
social policy. London: Tavistock.
Cheung, N. W. T., & Cheung, Y. W. (2006). Is Hong Kong experiencing normalization of adolescent drug use? Some reflections on the normalization thesis. Substance Use & Misuse, 41(14),
1967–1990.
Currie, C., Fairgrieve, J., Currie, D., & Akhtar, P. (2003). Scottish schools adolescent lifestyle and
substance use survey (SALSUS). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
Day, G. (1999). Address to the fourth international private sector conference on drugs in the
workplace and the community. Sundvall: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
Ditton, J., & Speirits, K. (1982). The new wave of heroin addiction in Britain. Sociology, 16,
595–598.
DrugScope. (2009). Amphetamines. Retrieved July 29, 2008, from http://www.drugscope.org.uk/
resources/drugsearch/drugsearchpages/amphetamines.htm
Duff, C. (2003). Drugs and youth cultures: Is Australia experiencing the ‘normalization’ of adolescent drug use? Youth Studies Australia, 6(4), 433–446.
Eaton, G., Davies, C., English, L., Lodwick, A., McVeigh, J., & Bellis, M. A. (2008). National
report to the EMCDDA by the Reitox National Focal Point. United Kingdom: New developments,
trends and in-depth information of selected issues. Liverpool: John Moores University.
Egginton, R., & Parker, H. (2000). Hidden heroin users: Young people’s unchallenged journeys to
problematic drug use. London: DrugScope.
EMCDDA. (2009). The state of the drugs problem in Europe: Annual report. Lisbon:
EMCDDA. Retrieved September 03, 2009, from http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/
annual-report/2009
EMCDDA, & EMDCCA. (2001). Annual report on the state of the drugs problem in the European
Union. Lisbon: EMCDDA. Retrieved May 29, 2009, from http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.
cfm/index37275EN.html
Gemmell, I., Millar, T., & Hay, G. (2004). Capture-recapture estimates of problem drug use and
the use of simulation based confidence intervals in a stratified analysis. Journal of Epidemiology
and Community Health, 58, 758–765.
General Register Office for Scotland. (2009). Drug-related deaths in Scotland in 2007. Statistics
of drug-related deaths in 2007 and earlier years, broken down by cause of death, selected
drugs involved, age and sex. Edinburgh: General Register Office for Scotland. Retrieved July
22, 2009, from http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files1/stats/drug-related-deaths-in-scotland-2007/
drug-related-deaths-in-scotland-2007.pdf
Hartnoll, R., Lewis, R., Mitcheson, M., & Bryer, S. (1985). Estimating the prevalence of opiate
dependence. Lancet, 26, 203–205.
Hay, G., & Gannon, M. (2006). Capture-recapture estimates of the local and national prevalence of
problem drug use in Scotland. The International Journal on Drug Policy, 17, 203–210.
Hay, G., Gannon, M., Casey, J., & McKeganey, N. (2009). Estimating the national and local prevalence
of problem drug misuse in Scotland. Executive report. Glasgow: Centre for Drug Misuse
Research/University of Glasgow.

References

335

Hughes, R., Lart, R., & Higate, P. (Eds.). (2006). Drugs, policy and politics. Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
ISD Scotland. (1999–2010). Drug misuse statistics scotland. Edinburgh: ISD Publications.
Lalander, P. (2003). Hooked on heroin: Drugs and drifters in a globalized world. Oxford/
New York: Berg/Oxford International Publishers.
Lucchini, R. (1985). Young drug addicts and the drug scene. Bulletin on Narcotics, 37(2–3),
135–148.
Maxwell, C., Kinver, A., & Phelbs, A. (2007). Scottish schools adolescent lifestyle and substance
use survey (SALSUS). Leamington Spa: BMRB Social Research.
Moloney, M., Hunt, G., & Evans, K. (2008). Asian American identity and drug consumption: From
acculturation to normalization. Journal of Ethnic Substance Abuse, 7(4), 376–403.
NatCen/NFER. (2007). Smoking, drinking and drug use among young people in England,
1997–2006. London: Office of National Statistics.
NHS Shetland. (2008). News release: Respect and protect: World AIDS day 21st birthday celebration.
Retrieved July 11, 2009, from http://www.shb.scot.nhs.uk/pressreleases/documents/251108WorldAidsDay.pdf
Parker, H. (2005). Normalization as a barometer: Recreational drug use and the consumption of
leisure by younger Britons. Addiction Research & Theory, 13(3), 205–215.
Parker, H., Newcombe, R., & Bakx, K. (1987). The new heroin users: Prevalence and characteristics
in Wirral, Merseyside. British Journal of Addiction, 82, 147–157.
Parker, H., Bakx, K., & Newcombe, R. (1988). Living with heroin: The impact of a drugs epidemic
on an English community. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Parker, H., Aldridge, J., & Measham, F. (1998). Illegal leisure. London: Routledge.
Pearson, G. (2001). Normal drug use: Ethnographic fieldwork among an adult network of
recreational drug users in inner London. Substance Use & Misuse, 36(1&2), 167–200.
Pilkington, H. (2006). For us it is normal: Exploring the recreational use of heroin within Russian
youth cultural practice. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 22, 24–53.
Roe, S., & Man, L. (2006). Drug misuse declared: Findings from the 2005/06 British Crime Survey
(England and Wales). Retrieved December 11, 2007, from http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/
pdfs06/hosb1506.pdf
Roy, K. M., Hutchinson, S. J., Wadd, S., Taylor, A., Cameron, S. O., Burns, S., Molyneaux, P.,
McIntyre, P. G., & Goldberg, D. J. (2007). Hepatitis C virus infection among injecting drug
users in Scotland: A review of prevalence and incidence data and the methods used to generate
them. Epidemiology and Infection, 35(3), 433–42.
Seddon, T. (2007). The hardest drug? Trends in heroin use in Britain. In M. Simpson, T. Shildrick,
& R. MacDonald (Eds.), Drugs in Britain: Supply, consumption and control. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Seddon, T. (2008). Youth, heroin, crack: A review of the recent British trends. Health Education,
108(3), 237–246.
Shetland Alcohol and Drug Action Team. (2006). Drug and alcohol corporate action plan
2005/2006. Lerwick: SADAT. Retrieved February 20, 2008, from www.drugmisuse.isdscotland.
org/dat/cap/2005_06/Shetland.pdf
Shetland Alcohol and Drug Action Team. (2009). Young people’s alcohol and drugs service needs
assessment report. Lerwick: SADAT.
Shetland Islands Council. (2007). Sustaining Shetland: Annual monitoring of social, economic,
environmental and cultural trends. Lerwick. Retrieved June 12, 2008, from http://www.shetland.
gov.uk/communityplanning/documents/SustainingShetland2007.pdf
Shetland Islands Council. (2009). The Scottish women’s convention. Retrieved October 02, 2009, from
http://www.shetland.gov.uk/datashare/upload/documents/SWCShetlandRoadshowAugust2009.
pdf
Shiner, M., & Newburn, T. (1997). Definitely, maybe not? The normalisation of drug use amongst
young people. Sociology, 31(3), 511–529.

336

15

The British, Scottish, and Shetland Heroin Trends in Numbers

Shiner, M., & Newburn, T. (1999). Taking tean with Noel: The place and meaning of drug use in
everyday life. In N. South (Ed.), Drugs: Cultures, controls and everyday life. London: Sage.
Stallwitz, A. (2007). Heroin use in Shetland from the perspective of different local professionals.
Therapeutic Communities, 28(3), 256–272.
Stimson, G., & Oppenheimer, E. (1982). Heroin addiction: Treatment and control in Britain.
London: Tavistock.
Taylor, S. (2005). Public health annual report 2005. Lerwick: NHS Shetland.
Taylor, S. (2006). The misuse of drugs – A profile of Shetland. Lerwick: NHS Shetland
[electronic
document]
http://www.shetland.gov.uk/datashare/upload/documents/
BoardpaperDrugstatsJan06.pdf
The Times 18/08/2007. Heroin teenager’s death exposes drug menace gripping Shetland. Retrieved
September 22, 2008, from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2280651.ece
Young, J. (1971). The drugtakers. The social meaning of drug use. London: Cox & Wyman Ltd.

Chapter 16

Media Reports on Heroin in Shetland

16.1

Media Reports

Numerous reports by the local newspapers, and several by national newspapers,
reflect the developments concerning the expansion and intensification of heroin use
in Shetland. An extract from the Shetland News from 24 January 2004 gives an
account of the arrest of the younger one of the main dealers during the commercial
peak era [Johnny], in January 2004. Apart from the dealer, a further ten people
including women were arrested, of whom those mentioned with names and ages,
were much older than the dealer. (For confidentiality reasons, personal details
are excluded from the extract presented below.) This might indicate that despite the
heroin scene’s obvious expansion to young people and even teenagers, most people
engaged in the heroin trade continue to be older. The partner of the dealer [Finn]
represents one example. Hence, with his relatively young age, the heroin seller
might still be a relative exception.
The Shetland News, 24 January 2004
TEN people have been arrested in what police have described as the biggest drugs raid
Shetland has ever seen, with substantial quantities of heroin, ecstasy and cannabis being
seized.
The drugs with an estimated street value of £25,000 were recovered from various
addresses throughout Lerwick following raids that came under the banner of “Operation
Lapel”.
Northern Constabulary was supported by officers from Grampian Police and the Shetland
based charity Dogs against Drugs in raids that took place in Lerwick between Tuesday and
Thursday this week. Around 25 officers were involved. […]

Interviewees describe the causal relationship between the arrest of the one main
dealer in January, his trial a few months later and the arrest of the other dealer in
June, and the subsequently fragmented structure of the Shetland heroin market
(cf. Sects. 8.5.9 and 8.6 of Part II). According to anecdotal evidence such as regular
telephone conversations with a local drugs worker, the market structure remains

A. Stallwitz, The Role of Community-Mindedness in the Self-Regulation of Drug
Cultures: A Case Study from the Shetland Islands, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3861-4_16,
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

337

338

16

Media Reports on Heroin in Shetland

fragmented until the present day. Nonetheless, both amounts of heroin supplied and
dealt and numbers and diversity of users on the island apparently continue to
increase steadily (cf. CDT 2006; Taylor 2006; BBC Scotland 21/11/2007; ISD
2008; The Times Online, 23/04/2008; BBC News 20/10/09). The Shetland heroin
market seemingly adapted very well to the given conditions without ultimately
being restrained in size and expansion. Only a year and a few months after the arrest
of the second dealer, Shetland police seized an even greater amount of illicit drugs
including heroin, as outlined by The Shetland News on 15 September 2005 below.
The arrested dealer is reported to be an older person.
POLICE in Shetland made their biggest ever haul of illegal drugs in the islands, when
heroin, cocaine, amphetamine and cannabis valued at more than £50,000 were seized
off the ferry as it came into Lerwick from Aberdeen yesterday morning (Wednesday). […]
A 51 year old man from Shetland is expected to appear in court today in connection with
the incident. […]

In spite of the growing youth involvement and the increased incidence of drug
deaths in recent years (ISD 2008), the scene is still characterised by relatively low
levels of associated crime and violence (cf. Northern Constabulary 2009). Concluding
from the Northern Constabulary’s website 2009, the main crimes affecting the
islands represent ‘alcohol related incidents, petty vandalisms, dishonesty, the
misuse of drugs and road traffic related matters’.
As pointed out by the Guardian on 23 April 2008 in an article about a 17-year-old
Shetland girl who died after a heroin overdose (also compare The Times Online on
18 August 2007):
[…] Despite its prosperity, remoteness from Britain’s cities and low crime rates, heroin had
taken hold, couriered in by drugs gangs from Liverpool and Glasgow. The case exposed
surging rates of heroin abuse among under-25 s. […]

The arrest of two heroin suppliers, who were linked to Liverpool drugs syndicates in November 2007, exemplifies the ‘Liverpool connection’ mentioned by several
of the interviewed heroin users (cf. Sect. 8.5.2.3 of Part II). According to Shetland
chief inspector Bell, ‘the suppliers believe the rewards are worth the risks’ since
‘here, heroin sells for twice the mainland price’ and with the obvious local demand,
Shetland provides a lucrative market (Guardian 2008). This statement again corresponds to interview accounts regarding the comparatively high price for heroin in
Shetland as well as the economic potential of the Shetland heroin market for suppliers
and dealers. Referring to reports from the Shetland police, various media sources
suggest the purposeful targeting of the island heroin market by drug syndicates from
Liverpool and other British cities (The Shetland Encyclopaedia 2007; The Times
Online 18/08/07; BBC News 21/11/07; The Scotsman 22/11/07; The Guardian
23/12/07; Narkonon 2009).
Sometime in 2009 (for confidentiality reasons no specific date is given here),
The Shetland News report that the police arrested a middle-aged Shetland man for
dealing heroin, who had been imprisoned for dealing heroin and other drugs already
twice in the past 7 years [Peter]. He was sentenced to a 4-year prison sentence. After
having finished his previous sentences, he had seemingly each time returned to

References

339

Shetland and resumed dealing. When reviewing the Shetland News archive, it
becomes apparent that he constitutes only one of many such examples. These occurrences provide support for the proposition of the ‘prison connection’ put forward
by interviewees in Part II, Sect. 7.4.3.1, p. 197 and Sect. 8.5.7.6, p. 239: Rather than
undergoing rehabilitation in incarceration, heroin dealers tend to make contacts
with professional dealers and suppliers, optimise their drugs trade skills, and return
to Shetland to resume dealing after release.
Concluding from the many Shetland News articles reporting on numerous people
being caught with heroin quantities of varying amounts, the extent of heroin trade
and use has meanwhile by far exceeded the levels of the commercial peak (for
recent articles see, e.g. Shetland News on 05/09/09, 25/09/09, 18/10/09, 22/10/09,
27/10/09).

References
BBC News. Illegal drugs cases area-by-area: Shetland, 21/11/2007. Retrieved December 12,
2007, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7103541.stm
BBC Scotland 30/10/2009. Two arrested in heroin clampdown. Retrieved November 01, 2009,
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/north_east/8317373.stm
CDT. (2006) Annual report Shetland community drugs team 2005/2006. Lerwick: CDT.
ISD Scotland. (1999–2009). Drug misuse statistics Scotland. Edinburgh: ISD Publications.
Narkonon. (2009). Homepage. Retrieved August 13, 2009, from http://www.addictionca.com/
news-left.htm?aid=2115
Northern Constabulary. (2009). Crime trends. Retrieved July 11, 2009, from http://www.northern.
police.uk/shetland-crime-trends.html
Shetlopedia: The Shetland Encyclopaedia. (2007). November. Retrieved January 22, 2008, from
http://shetlopedia.com/2007
Taylor, S. (2006). The misuse of drugs – A profile of Shetland. Lerwick: NHS Shetland. [electronic
document] http://www.shetland.gov.uk/datashare/upload/documents/BoardpaperDrugstatsJan06.
pdf
The Guardian, 23/04/2008. Heroin death exposes Shetland drugs blight. Retrieved February 09,
2009, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/23/scotland.drugstrade
The Guardian, 23/12/2007. Shetland targeted by drugs gangs. Police seize £70,000-worth of
heroin as public vigilance is urged to help tackle the problem. Retrieved April 13, 2008, from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/23/ukcrime.drugstrade
The Scotsman, 22/11/2007. Police foil gang’s attempt to flood islands with heroin. Retrieved January
18, 2008, from http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/heroin/Police-foil-gangs-attempt-to.3539756.jp
The Shetland News, 05/11/2009. Heroin dealer gets four years. Retrieved Nevember 05, 2009 from
http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/archives
The Times 18/08/2007. Heroin teenager’s death exposes drug menace gripping Shetland. Retrieved
September 22, 2008, from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2280651.ece
The Times, 23/04/2008. Dealers jailed as heroin scourge hits Shetland. Retrieved February 01,
2009, from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3804208.ece

Chapter 17

Heroin Use in Relation to the Location-Specific
Particularities of the Shetland Islands

17.1

Socio-economic Situation

The newspaper articles cited in the previous section indicate relatively recent drastic
mutations of the Shetland heroin subculture. In the following, the role of the geographic, cultural, and socio-economic particularities of the Shetland Islands in relation to the changed situation will be illuminated.
Both the interviewed heroin users and many local professionals and practitioners
(Stallwitz 2007; CADSS 2008) emphasise the low levels of socio-economic deprivation and exclusion in Shetland, which account for most heroin users financing
their drug consumption through ordinary employment.
For 30 years, Shetland has benefited from very low levels of unemployment.
At 1.3% in March 2009, the unemployment rate in Shetland is still one of the
lowest in the UK (Shetland Islands Council 2009). In August 2008, 106 people,
0.8% of the population, were claiming job seekers allowances. The overall number of businesses in Shetland has reduced slightly from 1,290 at the end of 2006
to 1,270 at the end of 2007 (Shetland Islands Council 2009), possibly indicating
a mild economic recession mentioned by, apart from interviewees, some local
professionals (Stallwitz 2007).

17.2

Crime

Crime rates in Shetland are referred to as low, with 322 crimes per 10,000 of the
population in 2004/2005 compared to the Scottish rate of 863 per 10,000 of the
population (Highlands and Islands Enterprise 2007). According to the Shetland
Islands Council, the total number of criminal offences had increased between 2002
and 2006 and since then steadily decreased (2009). A slight increase is observable
for unspecified crimes. The total clear-up rate for crimes is one of the highest in the

A. Stallwitz, The Role of Community-Mindedness in the Self-Regulation of Drug
Cultures: A Case Study from the Shetland Islands, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3861-4_17,
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

341

342 17 Heroin Use in Relation to the Location-Specific Particularities of the Shetland Islands

UK. The low crime and high clear-up rates are probably explicable in terms of the
small size of the island and the common community-minded mentality.

17.3

Geographic Location

Until recently, Shetland’s geographic isolation and its consequent regular heroin
droughts have generally been assessed as protecting local heroin users from developing states of severe addiction. Now, for the first time, Shetland’s geographic location is no longer assessed as a protective factor, which is associated with the apparent
inclusion of the island in the catchment area of drug syndicates in urban Britain.
The far-reaching impact of the police is generally seen to be controversial (Stallwitz
2007). On the one hand, interventions can be more target-oriented and have the potential to be more influential than in a big, anonymous city (shown by the high clear-up
rate just mentioned), and therefore to be of greater deterrence for many considering
dealing. On the other hand, the Shetland heroin market seems to principally adapt
rather than to diminish (cf. May and Hough 2004). Both interviewed users as well as
local practitioners have suggested that the increase in arrests in recent years has contributed to the criminalisation of the heroin scene. As just pointed out, many Shetland
drug dealers apparently utilise their incarceration for social networking and professionalising their own knowledge and skills rather than for social rehabilitation.

17.4
17.4.1

Culture
‘Living Life on the Edge’

When comparing heroin-using clients in Shetland with clients on the urban mainland,
local practitioner and professionals emphasise that Shetland clients often consume
in heroin and other drugs chaotically (CDT 2007; CADSS 2008) while still living in
principal a socially integrated life (Stallwitz 2007). As already mentioned above,
the ‘extreme contrast of mad and uncontrolled partying and organised, together
working life’ appear to be characteristic for many Shetlanders (Stallwitz 2007, p.
261). Therefore, ‘living life on the edge’ with excessive poly-substance use (p. 261)
seems to be regarded as constituting a norm for numerous Shetlanders (cf. CDT
2007; CADSS 2008).

17.4.2

Community-Mindedness

Consistent with many of the interviewed heroin users, a Lerwick police officer has
mentioned the ‘community-minded’ mentality of many Shetland heroin users as
being a strong regulating factor against the emergence of antisocial and violent
tendencies in the heroin subculture (Stallwitz 2007, p. 263). He emphasise the ‘old

17.5 Conclusions

343

school’ values that originally restricted the spread of heavy, habitual heroin use in
general and especially to youngsters (p. 264). However, the expansion of commercial norms and the increased acceptance of heroin use apparently undermined the
rule to protect youngsters. Whereas the police officer is the only person who explicitly uses the term ‘community-mindedness’, other professionals and practitioners
describe the community-oriented spirit by using their own words. Generally, community-mindedness is presented as a dichotomous concept constituting both a protective and a risk factor with regard to the overall control of the heroin scene. On the
one hand, intensified mutual social care and exchange between groups and social
strata is seen as strengthening social cohesion within the island community and
counteracting social slipping. On the other hand, the strong degree of stigmatisation
of heroin fosters the social exclusion of people becoming publicly known to use
heroin or, even worse, deal it.
This dynamic is aggravated by the Shetland norm of mentioning arrestees with
name, address, and other available personal details journalists can obtain from the
police. In a small society like Shetland, this convention is somewhat reminiscent of the
medieval custom of pillorying criminals publicly. Interviewees repeatedly stress their
fear of having their ‘name in the paper’ (cf. Sect. 7.3.6.1, p. 186 of Part II) in relation
to heroin use or dealing. Considering the small size and geographical isolation of the
close-knit island community, the threat of being sanctioned with a permanent ‘junkie’
or ‘heroin dealer’ label seems obvious. In an anonymous city, the person could subsequently move to a different area and start a new life, which is not possible in Shetland
‘where everyone knows each other’ (cf. Part II, Sect. 7.3.1, p. 162). Nonetheless, as
pointed out by Kemmesies (2004), people involved in illicit drug scenes are confronted
with both actual and anticipated threats. With respect to social exclusion, many interviewees outline the irreversible outcome of having had one’s name in the paper. Others
again characterise Shetlanders as being also tolerant and forgiving, if one can prove
their improvement convincingly. Thus, while the ‘name in the paper’ custom definitely
causes great, unnecessary social problems for the individual in terms of stigmatisation
and social exclusion, the possibility of a (relative) rehabilitation also seems to exist. In
such an extreme situation as of the arrest of significant heroin dealers, social rehabilitation will, however, be very difficult. Besides, if the person expects permanent social
condemnation and exclusion, the probability of self-labelling and continuation and
escalation of the deviant career is, according to labelling theory (cf. Becker 1963;
Quensel 1973; Meuser and Löschper 2002), greatly increased. Combined with the
seemingly established business connections between Shetlanders and Liverpool drug
suppliers, the increasing number of heroin dealers being arrested and incarcerated (cf.
‘the prison connection’, Part II Sects. 7.4.3.1, p. 197 and 8.5.7.6, p. 239) might further
propel the degree of criminal involvement within the island heroin subculture.

17.5

Conclusions

This section has demonstrated that the location-specific particularities of the
Shetland Islands impact on the degree of social integration, internal balance, and
community-minded standards of the heroin scene in very different ways. Moreover,

344 17 Heroin Use in Relation to the Location-Specific Particularities of the Shetland Islands

the nature of the respective influence depends on a series of related issues. Hence,
changes in these issues can decide whether a certain particularity fosters or threatens social cohesion, homeostasis, and social integration of the scene. From the early
days of the Shetland heroin scene, the high living standards and the low levels of
socio-economic deprivation and crime have steadily supported the subculture’s
problem-reduced nature, pro-social orientation, and social unobtrusiveness (CDT
2007). Local professionals have pointed out that a deterioration of the socio-economic conditions would inevitably result in a decisive increase in heroin use–related
problems (Stallwitz 2007). The above-mentioned signs of a slight economic recession might be a step in this direction, although the current economic situation in
Shetland in relation to the oil industry and other economic fields is assessed to be
prosperous and relatively stable (Shetland Islands Council 2008). Another negative
development might be seen in the suggested expansion of a state-dependent mentality amongst certain segments of the island population (CDT 2007; Stallwitz 2007).
Whereas the geographic isolation clearly promoted the subcultural equilibrium
and the low rates of heroin use-associated problems, this situation seems to have
begun to change in the recent past, with indications that the Shetland heroin market
is now included in the catchment area of significant urban heroin suppliers.
With continuing arrests of local dealers, the influence of the Shetland-typical
community-minded attitude has seemingly begun to change in recent times. Under
the modified conditions described in the preceding section, the social control side of
the island’s community-minded spirit, exemplified by the ‘name in the paper custom’, might grow in impact relative to the pro-social side of the mentality aspect.
Therefore, the socially and individually protective component of the communitymindedness might lose significance, while the socially and individually destructive
side might gain weight.
Compared to the location-specific particularities of British cities, the conditions
on the Shetland Islands still exert a clearly protective impact with regard to heroin
use–associated problems. Nonetheless, addiction and possibly hepatitis C infection
rates are no longer included, and the degree of protection has reduced notably in
recent years.
In the following section, the developments within the island heroin scene are
analysed from the perspective of an explanatory model of evolving drug eras in
order to integrate the occurrences into a wider context and derive explanations at a
theoretical meta-level.

References
Becker, H.S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press.
CADSS. (2008). Annual report community alcohol & drugs services Shetland 2007/2008. Lerwick:
CADSS.
CDT. (2007). Annual report Shetland community drugs team 2006/2007. Lerwick: CDT.
Highlands and Islands Enterprise (2007). Economic Update: Shetland. April 2007. Retrieved
February 15, 2007, from http://www.hie.co.uk/about-hie/policies-and-publications/default.html.

References

345

Kemmesies, U. E. (2004). Zwischen Rausch und Realität: Drogenkonsum im bürgerlichen Milieu.
Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
May, T., & Hough, M. (2004). Drug markets and distribution systems. Addiction Research &
Theory, 12(6), 549–563.
Meuser, M., & Löschper, G. (2002). Einleitung: Qualitative Forschung in der Kriminologie. Forum
Qualitative Sozialforschung 3(1), Art. 12.
Quensel, S. (1973). Wie wird man kriminell? Verlaufsmodell einer fehlgeschlagenen Interaktion
zwischen Delinquenten und Sanktionsinstanz. In H. Giesecke (Ed.), Offensive Sozialpädagogik.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
Shetland Islands Council. (2008). Economic development policy statement 2007–2011. Lerwick:
Shetland Islands Council.
Shetland Islands Council. (2009). Central island community profile. Retrieved September 15,
2009, from http://www.shetland.gov.uk/communityplanning/documents/Central.1doc.pdf
Stallwitz, A. (2007). Heroin use in Shetland from the perspective of different local professionals.
Therapeutic Communities, 28(3), 256–272.

Chapter 18

Explaining the Evolution of Drug Eras

In their theory of subcultural evolution, Golub, Johnson, and Dunlap explain that
drug eras form in certain patterns and develop according to changes in the surrounding and wider mainstream culture (2005). The authors deliberately avoid the use of
the ‘epidemic’ metaphor and thereby the widespread pathological perspective on
drug use and the association with stigmatisation and media panics (cf. style of
reporting by the Shetland newspapers) and apply the neutral term of drug ‘eras’
instead (p. 221). Drug eras are a social rather than a medical phenomenon and
largely depend on ‘setting’ variables (cf. Zinberg 1984; Sect. 2.6.2 of Part I, p. 23).
Golub et al. argue that the ‘prevailing drug subcultures and the individuals’ social
position relative to them define the range of drugs readily available, the symbolic
significance of their use, how use can lead to various affiliations, and social consequences for both use and non-use’ (cf. Hammersley et al. 2001). Each drug era is
characterised by distinct clusters of norms, behaviour, symbols (cf. ‘symbolic interactionism’, Mead (1956) and Blumer (1969); also see Part I, Sect. 3.3), and shared
realities. They see each person as having the choice to adopt, adapt, or reject a drug
subculture and its related values, norms, and rules (cf. Blumer 1986; Rogers 1995;
Schafer 1998). The future development of a drug subculture consequently relies on
the degree to which the existing cultural elements are adapted and sustained. The
extent to which the subculture becomes accepted by the wider culture is defined by
the specific adoption of these elements to the respective circumstances. In this fashion, the emergence, transformation, and cessation of drug subcultures are also regulated. Therefore, the prevailing subcultures vary considerably over time and
across locations (cf. Schulenberg et al. 1997).
According to Golub et al., drug eras tend to occur in four phases:
1. Incubation phase: A sub-population begins using a new drug.
2. Expansion phase: The drug is introduced to wider subgroups of users with an
individually varying susceptibility.
3. Plateau phase: Most susceptible persons have now taken up using, and consumption
is temporarily widespread.

A. Stallwitz, The Role of Community-Mindedness in the Self-Regulation of Drug
Cultures: A Case Study from the Shetland Islands, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3861-4_18,
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

347

348

18 Explaining the Evolution of Drug Eras

4. Decline phase: Using rates decrease as the general acceptability of the drug
decreases. Nonetheless, overall drug use often endures for many years as some
users continue their use. Thus, drug eras often overlap.
The authors contend that together with other socio-historical experiences, drug
eras determine the formation of generational identities. A drug generation they
define as the ‘birth years most affected by a drug era’ (p. 223). With respect to the
Shetland study, the generation of the original crew and the generation of the old
school are examples of heroin using groups of similar ages that share the zeitgeist
of their time and a generational identity.
Applying the model of subcultural evolution to the Shetland situation, the incubation phase can be seen as corresponding to the era of the early days and the era of
the old school. In both eras, hardly anyone other than the members of particular
subgroups engaged in the use of heroin. The classification of the subsequent eras
depends on whether the information of the subculture’s further development after
July 2004 is taken into account or not. If it were not taken into account, the expansion phase of the Shetland heroin subculture would be seen as having primarily
occurred during the contained commercialisation and the plateau phase during
the second half of the commercial peak. The current fragmentation would in that
case correspond to the decline phase. However, the CDT and CADSS annual reports,
the media articles, and anecdotal evidence suggest that the general acceptance and
consequent consumption of heroin continued to increase and spread to even greater
extents than during the commercial peak. Therefore, the current fragmentation represents only a temporary downturn within the overall expansion stage that began
with the contained commercialisation and has seemingly continued into the present.
Otherwise, the plateau phase might have been reached by now. In fact, this can only
be confirmed in retrospect when no further growth has been observed. However,
Golub et al. found drug eras to affect persons reaching adolescence (approximately
age 11–25) most during the plateau phase (cf. Golub and Johnson 1999). The evidence for a noticeable increase in youth heroin use in Shetland over the past years,
as repeatedly cited above, might imply that the Shetland heroin scene has entered
the plateau phase. Thus, the youth involvement in the Shetland heroin scene would
constitute a typical aspect of a drug scene being in its plateau (or expansion) phase,
rather than a sign of an abnormally severe trajectory. Still, the situation is concerning and requires appropriate handling, as will be recommended later on.
Linking the descriptions of the heroin trend in Britain on the whole, as provided
above, to the classification developed by Golub et al., there is every indication that
the British heroin era is currently situated in the plateau phase with no further
increase taking place. The same situation seems to apply to many European
countries, whereas some states, such as Austria and parts of Eastern Europe, are
obviously still in the expansion phase (cf. EMCDDA 2009). With regard to Eastern
Europe, the politically closed communist systems are likely to account for delays in
(some) drug trends. A delay is also observable in Northern Ireland, where a
significant expansion of heroin use has only been noticeable since the ceasefire in
the 1990s (Higgins and McElrath 2000).

18 Explaining the Evolution of Drug Eras

349

The sets of values, norms, and rules prevailing in the individual eras have been
described in detail in Chap. 7 of Part II. The old school users adapted the behavioural norms surrounding the occasional, ideational smoking use of the oil workers
and hippies to their own circumstances. The norms in which the controlled and
social style of dealing of the old school users was embedded were again adapted by
the main dealer and other, particularly significant subcultural members of the contained commercialisation. Subsequently, the standards of cautious and relatively
controlled heroin supply and consumption of the contained commercialisation were
adapted by the two main dealers and other active players of the heroin scene during
the commercial peak. These commercial, relatively opportunistic, and recklessly
profit-oriented customs were temporarily rejected with the arrest of the two main
dealers and the beginning of the current fragmentation, which was characterised by
secrecy and control at the time of the interviews. The continuing expansion of commercial norms associated with heroin trade and use can so far only be assumed.
Golub et al. point out that the use of one drug by a certain drug generation does
not imply the use of another drug, for example, the rise in marijuana use in the USA
in the 1990s did not lead to an increase in ‘hard drugs’ (Golub and Johnson 2001).
They regard the sequence of progression as being significantly influenced by secular
trends. The use of crack in Shetland represents a further example. Although the
second wave of the British heroin era was accompanied by the spread of crack consumption in some places, no great increase in crack consumption has hitherto been
observed in Shetland. For a number of years now, many clients of the Shetland drug
project state weekend consumption of crack, though not to concerning extents (CDT
2006, 2007; CADSS 2008). This, of course, could change; however, it is not
anticipated by CADSS (2008).
The authors name several shortcomings of their theoretical model, such as that it
does not specify ‘trigger events’ causing the transition from one era to the next (p. 226).
Moreover, the model has solely been applied to drug using populations in inner-city
New York. However, Golub et al. argue that the flaws can be compensated with
other, suitable theories.
With respect to the Shetland situation, the factors triggering the transition from
one era to the subsequent one have been outlined in detail in Chap. 7 of Part II. From
the interview analysis of the present study, and the discussion of the results in relation to the existing relevant literature, it can be inferred that the evolutionary pattern,
with which the Shetland heroin subculture develops and transforms, fundamentally
agrees with the patterns of heroin subcultures in any other place, including locations
as diverse as inner-city New York. Hence, on a macro-social and even global level,
no substantial differences are evident between the evolution of the Shetland heroin
scene and heroin scenes in an urban environment. On a local or micro-social level,
however, the respective geographic, cultural, and socio-economic particularities of
the place determine the precise timing and ‘moulding’ of the scene. Therefore, when
considering and adjusting for the respective local particularities, the Shetland
findings are universally applicable.

350

18 Explaining the Evolution of Drug Eras

References
Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic interactionism. Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
CADSS. (2008). Annual report community alcohol & drugs services Shetland 2007/2008. Lerwick:
CADSS.
CDT. (2006). Annual report Shetland community drugs team 2005/2006. Lerwick: CDT.
CDT. (2007). Annual report Shetland community drugs team 2006/2007. Lerwick: CDT.
EMCDDA. (2009). The state of the drugs problem in Europe: Annual report. Lisbon: EMCDDA.
Retrieved September 03, 2009, from http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/annualreport/2009
Golub, A., & Johnson, B. D. (1999). Cohort changes in illegal drug use among arrestees in
Manhattan: From the heroin injection generation to the blunts generation. Substance Use &
Misuse, 34, 1733–1763.
Golub, A., & Johnson, B. D. (2001). Variation in youthful risk of progression from alcohol/tobacco
to marijuana and hard drugs across generations. American Journal of Public Health, 91,
225–232.
Golub, A., Johnson, B. D., & Dunlap, E. (2005). Subcultural evolution and illicit drug use.
Addiction Research & Theory, 13(3), 217–229.
Hammersley, R., Jenkins, R., & Reid, M. (2001). Cannabis use and social identity. Addiction
Research & Theory, 9(2), 133–150.
Higgins, K., & McElrath, K. (2000). The trouble with peace: The cease-fires and their impact on
drug Use among youth in Northern Ireland. Youth Society, 32, 29.
Mead, G. H. (1956). The social psychology of George Herbert Mead. Edited with an introduction
by Anselm Strauss. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Schafer, D. P. (1998). Culture: Beacon of the future. Westport: Praeger.
Schulenberg, J., Maggs, J., & Hurrelmann, K. (Eds.). (1997). Health risks and developmental
transitions during adolescence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zinberg, N. E. (1984). Drug, set, and setting. The basis for controlled intoxicant use. New Haven:
Yale University Press.

Chapter 19

Future Prognosis of the Shetland Heroin Scene

The socio-economic and geographic circumstances of the Shetland Islands, and the
micro-social conditions of the island heroin scene, obviously regulate the extent to
which local heroin use and trade become socially noticeable and associated with
crime and violence. Hence, the macro- and micro-social particularities of the island
heroin scene significantly constrain the severity of certain heroin-associated social
problems. Overall levels and patterns of heroin use as well as the involvement of
diverse users including teenagers, on the contrary, seem by now largely unaffected
by the specificity of the local conditions. Whereas until the commercial peak, the
geographical isolation and community-minded mentality of the Shetland culture
and the heroin subculture curtailed the magnitude of heroin consumption, these
constraints now seem counterpoised by the global drug trend towards heroin use. To
all appearances, the global trend can in no way be curtailed or diminished exogenously, once it has begun to impact on a location. Nonetheless, the nature of its
individual and social effects is decisively influenced by specific macro- and microsocial conditions and can therefore be modified purposefully. Assuming that the
Shetland heroin scene as well as the shift towards injecting are still in the expansion
phase or are beginning to level out into the plateau phase provides a basis on which
estimations concerning future developments are possible. For this purpose, ethnographic, numerical, media, and similar evidence concerning the retrospective emergence and developments of heroin subcultures in other places can be analysed and
compared to the Shetland situation. Historically oriented ethnographic analyses of
heroin scenes, such as that by Ric Curtis, are specifically helpful in this context. An
analysis of the developments within the Zurich heroin scene in the mid-1980s presented by Lucchini (1985) can also be very valuable. According to his argument, the
subculture fragmented after severe police enforcement and an enormous increase in
users, which resulted in a worrying rise in overdose-related deaths. Similar coherences seem to apply to the situation in Shetland and a continuation of the enforcement oriented police approach to heroin on the island could contribute to a further
increase in drug deaths, as the transmission of informal control norms and rules is
externally disturbed.
A. Stallwitz, The Role of Community-Mindedness in the Self-Regulation of Drug
Cultures: A Case Study from the Shetland Islands, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3861-4_19,
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

351

352

19

Future Prognosis of the Shetland Heroin Scene

Documentation of the historical developments of other heroin scenes and the
consequences of the respective governmental responses can assist in developing
estimations concerning the prospective course of the island scene and productive
intervention approaches. Options regarding effective approaches to intervention
aimed at reducing heroin-related individual and social harm are presented in Chap.
20 of Part IV.

Reference
Lucchini, R. (1985). Young drug addicts and the drug scene. Bulletin on Narcotics, 37(2–3),
135–148.

Part IV

Promoting Self-regulation and
Social Integration of Drug Cultures

Chapter 20

A Model of Self-regulation and Social
Integration of Drug Subcultures

In Part III, analyses have been presented of the internal structures of heroin scenes
in a German and a Dutch city and a Swedish town; the formations and transitions of
British heroin markets; the trajectories of New York heroin scenes; the British,
Scottish, and Shetland heroin trend; and the evolution of drug eras. The specific
relevance of these analyses regarding the situation in the Shetland heroin scene has
in each case been illustrated and the respective conclusions regarding the present
study have been explicated. On this basis, inferences can be deduced which are
universally applicable to drug cultures of both occasional and/or habitual users in
rural and urban settings.
Regardless of the respective geographic location, the internal balance of, for
example, a heroin scene and its integration into the wider culture can be maintained
over time as long as the subculture is determined by a superordinate communityminded spirit. The preservation of such a higher-ranking group attitude depends on
the adherence to a set a ‘grid’ of norms and rules promoting social cohesion, control, and secrecy and sanctioning transgressing and violating behaviour. On this
basis, in- and out-groups can be defined implicitly or explicitly. Members of outgroups that threaten internal balance or social integration are required to be excluded
or to adjust their conduct to the subcultural norms. An example of an out-group
member adapting to the subcultural norms in the present study can be found in Sect.
7.3.5.2, p. 182 of Part II. As long as the originally urban users [Robin, C] still had
‘his mainland head on his shoulders’, he was sanctioned and excluded by members
of the island heroin scene. Only when he adapted to the particular norms of the
Shetland heroin scene did he experience acceptance. Destabilisation of the internal
balance typically causes reduction in societal integration. The scene becomes
noticeable and begins to affect the social order and security of the wider culture.
Each heroin scene (and any other drug culture) is subject to an array of protective
and risk factors which either facilitate or threaten its equilibrium. Although protection and risk factors are similar for most scenes, they vary in the respective degree
of significance and weight, which depend on the scene’s nature and the locationspecific particularities of the surrounding environment. In the following, risk and
A. Stallwitz, The Role of Community-Mindedness in the Self-Regulation of Drug
Cultures: A Case Study from the Shetland Islands, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3861-4_20,
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

355

356

20 A Model of Self-regulation and Social Integration of Drug Subcultures

protection factors within the community in which a heroin subculture is embedded
and consequently those the subculture itself contains are listed. Additionally, in
each case the likely consequences are specified. Some factors are closely related
and mutually dependent, and their separation is therefore somewhat artificial. The
same applies to the consequences, and therefore the exact causal relationships can
never be identified and depicted in 100% correctness. Causal chains of mutually
associated or dependent elements often exist. These complex associations and interconnections, which are virtually impossible to fully disentangle, are simplified in
order to be presented in a clearly structured and comprehensible way. Again, the
example of a subculture centred on heroin, the probably most stigmatised and criminalised illicit drug, is employed to illustrate these coherences most demonstratively.
Nonetheless, the presented connections apply (in respectively modified manners) to
any other illegal drug scene.
Particularities of the surrounding community protecting or fostering the equilibrium and social integration of a heroin subculture include
Low levels of socio-economic
• Low levels of socio-economic deprivation
deprivation within the heroin subculture are promoted.
• A strong sense of social cohesion and community-mindedness
Social
cohesion and community-mindedness within the heroin subculture and the
preservation of pro-social norms are promoted.
• A focus on harm-minimising and decriminalising interventions concerning the
subculture on the part of the state
Criminalisation, violence, and criminality
within the subculture are likely to be reduced and community-mindedness to be
supported.
• Clear sanctions on antisocial behaviours with as little stigmatisation and
permanent social exclusion as possible
Risk of self-labelling and progressing
social deviance of subcultural members is reduced.
Particularities of the surrounding community threatening the equilibrium and
social integration of a heroin subculture include
• High levels of socio-economic deprivation
The probability of high levels of
socio-economic deprivation within the subculture is increased.
• A weak sense of social cohesion and community-mindedness
The probability of social cohesion and community-mindedness within the subculture being
weakened is increased and the spread of antisocial behaviour promoted.
• A focus on criminalising, repressive enforcement on the part of the state
The probability of criminalisation, violence, and criminality within the subculture
is increased and subcultural community-mindedness counteracted.
• Acceptance of antisocial behaviour and/or strong stigmatisation and permanent
The spread of antisocial behaviours and/or the risk of selfsocial exclusion
labelling and progressing social deviance of subcultural members are increased.
Despite the listed protective factors within the community, in which a heroin
subculture is embedded, it can lose its inner balance and develop problematic
tendencies. Vice versa, irrespective of strong risk factors in the community, a scene

20 A Model of Self-regulation and Social Integration of Drug Subcultures

357

can maintain its inner order and nonetheless exist with few problems. This is shown,
for example, by scenes of (socially integrated) recreational or occasional users that
can exist virtually alongside scenes of (socially marginalised) heavy users. According
to Golub et al. the evolutionary stage also comes into play here with crucial significance (2005). During the plateau phase, the general balance of a subculture might
be under decisively more strain than during the incubation phase. Although the just
mentioned environmental aspects are likely to impact on the features and internal
structure of a heroin scene, the exact relationships between cause and effect are
impossible to specify.
In Part II, Alfred Adler is cited with regard to what he calls ‘Gemeinschaftsgefühl’
(community-mindedness or community spirit) (cf. Sect. 7.3.4.1, p. 174). He contends that an increase in the community spirit causes an increase in social control
since a result of the strong focus on the common good leads to behaviour that does
not correspond to the collective interests being rejected as deviant. Thus, a strong
sense of community within a drug scene encourages the rejection of all conduct
threatening the common good and thereby the subcultural equilibrium. As has been
pointed out, community-mindedness-related norms and rules promoting social cohesion, control, and secrecy represent the means to preserve the common good and to
sustain balance. Like all causal elements on the macro- and micro-social level,
the degree of community-mindedness, secrecy, and control and the equilibrium
of a drug subculture are mutually dependent and reciprocally interactive.
Particularities within the subculture protecting the equilibrium and social
integration of a heroin subculture include
Promotes the
• Many responsible and socially integrated users and dealers
development of and adherence to clear social, secrecy, and control norms, rules, and
sanctions, and the overriding sense of community-mindedness is strengthened.
• A closed, communal, and egalitarian market system
Trust and the notion of
a common idea and common interests and thus community-mindedness are
reinforced.
• Little disturbance by incoming heroin users and/or dealers with less communityminded aspirations
The maintenance of a balanced status quo is
facilitated.
Particularities within the subculture threatening the equilibrium and social integration of a heroin subculture include
• Involvement of selfish and antisocial, socially marginalised users and dealers
The development of and adherence to clear social, secrecy, and control
norms, rules, and sanctions are hindered; antisocial, violent, criminal, and highrisk behaviours are promoted; and the overall sense of community-mindedness is
weakened.
The
• An open, fragmented, and/or strongly profit-oriented market system
perpetuation of a common interest tends to be undermined, which weakens
the overriding sense of community-mindedness.

358

20 A Model of Self-regulation and Social Integration of Drug Subcultures

• Disturbance by incoming heroin users and/or dealers with less community-minded
aspirations
Again, the perpetuation of a common interest tends to be undermined and the overriding sense of community-mindedness weakened.
The precise effects a high or low level of community-mindedness can have on a
drug subculture are sketched below.
A high degree of community-mindedness stabilises the equilibrium and social
integration of the subculture by
Levels and
• Counteracting uncontrolled and excessive patterns of use
degrees of addiction as well as of overdoses and other high-risk behaviours are
likely to be low, whereby drug deaths and viral infections are confined.
• Restricting access to heroin
Scene involvement of very young or uncontrolled, selfish users, and thereby risky and criminal behaviours can be reduced.
• Encouraging caution and secrecy
Social noticeability can be regulated and
potentially avoided.
• Promoting the socialisation of new subcultural members with respect to individually and socially safe and responsible styles of use
The introduction and
spread of destructive norms and behaviours can be prevented or constrained.
• Promoting the rejection of antisocial, violent, and criminal conduct
Again,
the introduction and spread of destructive norms and behaviours can be prevented
or constrained.
• Promoting the regulation and stability of drug quality
Users can appraise
the drug potency, and thereby the risk of overdoses is reduced.
A low degree of community-mindedness destabilises or destroys the equilibrium
and social integration of the subculture by
• Allowing uncontrolled and excessive patterns of use
High levels and
degrees of addiction as well as overdoses and other high-risk behaviours are
increased and thus drug deaths and viral infections.
• Weak or no restrictions of access to heroin
Scene involvement of very
young or uncontrolled, selfish users and risk and criminal behaviours are probably increased.
• Social noticeability cannot be controlled
Increased probability of busts and
associated criminalisation of the scene.
• Inhibiting the socialisation of new subcultural members with respect to individually and socially safe and responsible styles of use
The spread of antisocial,
violent, and criminal conduct is promoted.
The risk of overdoses and unwanted
• Inhibiting the regulation of drug quality
side effects is increased as users cannot reliably assess respective potency of drug.
In addition to the just listed threats on the macro- and the micro-social level, the
equilibrium and social integration of a subculture can also be disturbed by factors
that are, by and large, globally determined.

20 A Model of Self-regulation and Social Integration of Drug Subcultures

359

Global threats to the equilibrium and social integration of a subculture include
• A global trend towards heroin use leading to a rapid expansion of heroin users
The transference of community-mindedness-related norms of social cohesion, secrecy, and control is undermined.
• A new generation of heroin users and dealers emerges that rejects or strongly
adapts the previously predominant community-minded norms and rules and
A previous community-minded spirit can be
follows their own standards
diminished or lost.
The developments just outlined are strongly influenced by global trends, such as
those just presented. Hereby, the location-specific particularities determine the
extent, form, and timing with which a global trend impacts on an individual heroin
scene. Figure 20.1 displays a model that represents the complex coherences outlined in this chapter. The coordinate system of the protective and risk factors
involved in the self-regulation and social integration of a heroin subculture on the
macro-social (community) level and on the micro-social (subcultural) level is represented on the vertical and the horizontal axes, respectively.
On the basis of the model following causal relations can be identified:
A drug scene affects society and especially public health, community safety, and
economic welfare as little as possible when the scene can regulate itself with the aid
of control rules. Prerequisite for the development and effectual implementation of
control rules and the maintenance of the subcultural homeostasis constitutes a strong
sense of community-mindedness embracing both social care and clear sanctions of
deviant behaviour. Community-mindedness serves the function of encouraging
scene members to perceive and treat the scene as a communal project. As a result of
this, the sense of social responsibility specifically amongst experienced, long-term
users, and dealers is strengthened.
The analysis of the historical emergence and transition of the Shetland heroin
scene against the background of the existing relevant literature has demonstrated
that ultimately the global drug trend cannot be suppressed and avoided. The example
of Northern Ireland, where heroin use was largely suppressed by the paramilitary
groups during the militant conflicts but spread considerably after the ceasefires in
1994 (cf. Higgins and McElrath 2000), demonstrates the significant importance of
the particularities of the location on the evolution of drug subcultures. Moreover, it
confirms that the global drug use trend can only be deferred in time but not be
completely prevented. Therefore, when developing efficient approaches to drugs
policy, it should be taken into consideration that the global trend cannot be deterred;
however, its implications and outcomes can effectively be modified, as will now be
illustrated.

360

20 A Model of Self-regulation and Social Integration of Drug Subcultures

Fig. 20.1 Model of self-regulation and social integration of a drug subculture in relation to the
micro- and macro-social conditions illustrated by the example of a heroin subculture

20.1

Practical Recommendations Derived from the Model

The model of subcultural equilibrium demonstrates that a lack of communitymindedness within a heroin (drug) subculture promotes a loss of norms and rules
protecting its social cohesion, control, and secrecy. This consequently threatens the
subculture’s internal homeostasis. An anomic drug using situation (Young 1971)
and a subsequent loss of social integration are the probable results manifested in
individually, socially, and economically adverse consequences. The community
and the state can implement different interventions on the macro-social and the

20.1 Practical Recommendations Derived from the Model

361

micro-social level to avoid disturbances of the subcultural internal equilibrium and
its social integration or, if homeostasis and social integration are already affected,
compensate for the destructive effects. Interventions include measures of primary,
secondary, and tertiary prevention and address a range of different locally and internationally acting domains. These include sciences and politics, education and health
care, the police, the criminal justice system, and practical drugs work:
1. Sciences and politics: The current evolutionary stage of a subculture can be
identified. Drug scenes in similar situations and their developments as well as
the respective governmental responses and their outcomes can be analysed. The
validity of analyses increases, if they are conducted in retrospective. On the basis
of such analyses and comparisons, individually tailored, harm-reducing approaches
can be designed and implemented concerning the subculture in question.
2. Education and health care: Non-ideological, factual education, well-integrated
in all parts of society and implemented extensively (also addressed at police and
drug users), can raise awareness regarding drug use–related issues and counteract stigmatisation and exclusion, as well as self-labelling.
3. Police and community: On the basis of point (2), the police and the community
can focus on harm-minimising interventions instead of repressive enforcement
that typically fosters criminalisation, violence, and pauperisation within the subculture and thereby adversely affects the community.
4. Criminal justice: Various alternatives to incarceration aimed at the socio-economic rehabilitation and integration of dealers and users can be developed and
realised.
5. Practical drugs work: The social structure of a drug scene can be utilised specifically to aim at reinforcing subcultural norms and rules in association with community-mindedness and responsible conduct. Amongst other things, such
harm-preventing and minimising measures include the promotion of safer drug
use and business and generally pro-social behaviours. Location-specific approaches
that are developed according to the respective conditions will be most efficient:
1. The identification of the current evolutionary stage and comparisons with
drug scenes in equivalent situations can offer:
• Information about the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of interventions
implemented in response to drug scenes at the same stage of evolution
Linking to the Dutch example outlined below concerning item (3), it
would, for example, be helpful to analyse the evolution of (certain) heroin
subcultures in the Netherlands, the degree of associated problems, the respective state responses, and the outcomes of the interventions.
2. Value-free drugs education and awareness training in the community, including
drug users and the police, can be delivered through:
• Widely distributed brochures and posters
• Education of pupils and young people at schools, youth clubs, etc. to
inform factually and neutrally about drug use–related issues and risks

362

20 A Model of Self-regulation and Social Integration of Drug Subcultures

• Outreach work targeted at locations not inevitably associated with drug
use, such as leisure and cultural facilities, clubs, and community halls
• Informative and educative elements embedded in widely frequented, popular
social, or cultural events
• Social events in co-operation with drug users and the community to reduce
prejudices and stigmatisation
• Awareness training for employers, specifically aimed at the reduction of
prejudices against drug users to promote social integration
The education of young people with regard to a responsible and mature
handling of drug use–related issues can compensate for the discontinued
transmission of the ‘lore of drug use’ in situations of anomic drug use as
described by Young (1971). In this way, the prevalence of drug deaths, new
blood-borne infections, addiction, and socio-economic problems can be counteracted effectively.
With regard to the non-using parts of the community, a reduction in stigmatisation, labelling, and social exclusion of drug users can be achieved.
Additionally, the reinforcement of a sense of community-mindedness and
social cohesion within the community through socially integrative measures
and institutions can also impact positively on a drug subculture. However,
such measures are part of a general approach to improve the cultural and
social conditions of a community, and precise descriptions would go beyond
the scope of this book. Therefore, they are only generally sketched here and
not outlined in more detail.
3. Harm-minimising approaches on the part of the community and police
include:
• Shifting focus from drug use per se to behaviours causing public and social
nuisance
• Differentiating between ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ drugs
• Increasing focus on operations aimed at drug syndicates and significant
suppliers, while decreasing focus on small street-level distributors and
users to avoid a criminal cycle of incarceration and resumption of drugs
trade with new criminal skills and subsequent re-incarceration
• Programmes for reducing drug-related public nuisance that are based on
joint ventures between treatment and care facilities, police, and civil groups
and include locally based and outreach activities
• Employment programmes in co-operation with employers
For years, the Netherlands have experience with a police approach aimed
at the reduction of public nuisance following from antisocial behaviour rather
than drug use and trade per se. Additionally, in this context, programmes are
implemented that involve the co-operation of treatment and social services,
community groups, and police (EMCDDA 2009a). This strategy, also mentioned by Grund (1993) cited above, seems to be an effective component of
the Dutch drug policy. Of course, the precise impact of this single feature

20.1 Practical Recommendations Derived from the Model

363

cannot be determined with certainty. However, in correspondence with the
model of subcultural homeostasis, a direct reducing impact of this approach
to drug policy and police intervention on numbers of drug-related offences,
drug-related deaths, and treatment demand is likely. Therefore, the national
figures published by EMCDDA for the Netherlands, generally characterised
by liberal and harm-minimising approaches to drug use and trade-related
intervention, and the United Kingdom, generally characterised by comparatively repressive and abstinence-oriented approaches to drug use and trade,
will be contrasted in the following.
In 2007, 3.38 drug-related deaths per 100,000 population were recorded in
the United Kingdom (EMCDDA 2009b), which compares to a rate of 0.6 per
100,000 population in the Netherlands (5.6 times lower). Even when considering that the United Kingdom counted 10 problem drug users per 1,000 population and the Netherlands only five, the rate of drug deaths in the Netherlands
is still significantly lower. The British rate of drug-related offences in 2006
amounts to 2.01 per 1,000 population (no figures of the overall United
Kingdom are available for 2007), compared to the Dutch rate of 1.17 per
1,000 population. In the United Kingdom, 2.1 individuals per 1,000 population entered treatment in 2007, which compares to the four times lower Dutch
rate of 0.53 per 1,000 population.
Although only a few select figures have been compared, the comparison
suggests generally lower levels of drug use–related harm in the Netherlands
than in the United Kingdom. This difference is, amongst other things, likely
to be associated with the different approaches of police and state intervention
to illicit drug use.
4. Alternatives to incarceration include, for example:
• Community-based service combined with psychosocial counselling
Suitable are, for example, counselling methods such as motivational interviewing (Miller and Rollnick 2002) and socio-economic integration programmes that comprise features of education and employment. Since drug
dealers, especially at the lower levels, are often simultaneously drug users,
community-based service can be combined effectively with all of the measures
mentioned under point 5.
5. The social structure of a drug scene can be utilised by pointedly reinforcing
norms and rules in relation to community-mindedness and thereby harm
minimisation through:
•
•
•
•

Outreach and street work
Peer education
Community social work
Social casework

Suitable elements capable of being easily integrated in social case work
embrace harm reduction-oriented counselling approaches, such as the treatment programme KISS (Kontrolle im selbstbestimmten Substanzkonsum,

364

20 A Model of Self-regulation and Social Integration of Drug Subcultures

GK Quest Akademie 2009) or the counselling approach of motivational
interviewing (e.g. Miller and Rollnick 2002), which have both been introduced or mentioned, respectively, in Sect. 2.6 of Part I. Building on the existing research on controlled substance use, KISS assists users to acquire and
apply rules that aim at regulating and reducing or stopping substance use. It
can be assumed that the greater the number of subcultural members able to
self-regulate their heroin use, the greater will be the self-regulatory capacities
of a heroin subculture and the degree of social integration. The degree of
social integration of a subculture is also strengthened by high levels of social
integration amongst its members, which again can be furthered through specific psychosocial programmes that include educational and employment
modules.
The practical and political relevance and applicability of the model of
subcultural homeostasis has been demonstrated comprehensively. The more
complex and multilayered intervention approaches are, the greater will be
the beneficial effects for both users and the general society. Nonetheless, the
listed measures, as well as other suitable ones, not mentioned here can also
be employed selectively. It should be pointed out here again that even though
the global drug trend cannot be suppressed or averted locally, its outcomes
can be influenced and thereby significantly ameliorated.

20.2

Résumé on the Subject of Society’s Dealing
with Illicit Drug Use

The findings of the present study as well as of comparable research presented in Part
III have demonstrated that the level of community-mindedness inherent in a drug
subculture significantly determines its degree of internal homeostasis and societal
integration. Certain incidents, in particular a rapid inflow of new users as well as
severe interferences with the scene on the part of the police, can deeply disturb this
homeostasis. As a consequence, the scene is likely to react with processes of commercialisation, criminalisation, and pauperisation, depending on the specific situation. Moreover, the evidence provided by analysing the historical course of the
Shetland heroin scene and of scenes in the presented scientific literature strongly
suggests that police enforcement typically cannot eradicate a scene. Besides changing its character in the ways just described the subculture will most probably also
react with the (temporary) transformation of turning underground or shifting locally.
The expansion and stabilisation of socially and individually problematic trends
within a scene, society can effectively counteract by employing specific interventions,
such as those introduced in the preceding section.
Bearing these causal coherences in mind, the socially most responsible and
successful policy to encounter a subculture from state side seems to be a harm
reduction approach. Nonetheless, to implement interventions of this kind efficiently,

References

365

illicit drug scenes have to be assessed according to their actual effects on public
health and community safety rather than being automatically deplored due to their
illegality. In the case of the latter, the morally and ideologically based approach of
the common ‘war against drugs’ method will probably be further maintained.
However, many years of experience and meanwhile sufficient scientific evidence
prove this method not only to have failed but also to have caused much preventable
harm (e.g. reinforcement of national and international criminal structures, adverse
impacts on individual and public health, and community safety). Tackling the subject
pragmatically and from a utilitarian, non-ideological position allows accepting and
exhausting a hitherto largely neglected potential. In this connection, the concept of
community-mindedness offers novel access and invaluable possibilities, of which
those outlined above constitute only a selection.

20.3

Implications for Future Research1

Starting from the findings of the present study, the further development of the
Shetland heroin scene can be tracked and analysed, which can greatly assist the
development of approaches to effective drug treatment and policy in Shetland.
Encompassing and thorough research on the historical emergence of heroin (drug)
subcultures that involves qualitative and quantitative methods and habitual and
non-habitual users is needed to further broaden our horizon with respect to understanding the nature of different styles of heroin use. Hereby, historically oriented
investigations, such as the ethnographic studies by Curtis (2003) and Spunt (2003)
and the present one, can be very valuable in identifying the evolutionary stage of the
scene under research. Finally, research specifically aimed at applying, testing, and
further elaborating the model of equilibrium and social integration of heroin (drug)
subcultures can assist in devising efficient approaches to harm reduction treatment
and policy.

References
Curtis, R. (2003). Crack, cocaine and heroin: Drug Eras in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, 1960–2000.
Addiction Research and Theory, 11(1), 47–63.
EMCDDA. (2009a). Drug situation. Country overview: Netherlands. Lisbon: EMCDDA. Retrieved
July 02, 2009, from http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/country-overviews/nl
EMCDDA. (2009b). Drug situation. Country overview: United Kingdom. Lisbon: EMCDDA.
Retrieved July 02, 2009, from http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/country-overviews/
uk#headersection

1

For strengths and limitations of the present study, see Appendix 3.

366

20 A Model of Self-regulation and Social Integration of Drug Subcultures

GK Quest Akademie. (2009). Erste Ergebnisse. Retrieved July 11, 2009, from http://www.
kiss-heidelberg.de/kiss-heidelberg/de/6/3/hintergrund/ergebnisse.aspx
Golub, A., Johnson, B. D., & Dunlap, E. (2005). Subcultural evolution and illicit drug use.
Addiction Research & Theory, 13(3), 217–229.
Grund, J.-P. C. (1993). Drug use as a social ritual: Functionality, symbolism and determinants of
self-regulation. Rotterdam: IVO Reeks.
Higgins, K., & McElrath, K. (2000). The trouble with peace: The cease-fires and their impact on
drug use among youth in Northern Ireland. Youth Society, 32, 29.
Miller, W., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing. Preparing people for change.
New York: Guilford Press.
Spunt, B. (2003). The current New York City heroin scene. Substance Use & Misuse, 38(10),
1539–1549.
Young, J. (1971). The drugtakers. The social meaning of drug use. London: Cox & Wyman Ltd.

Appendix

Appendix 1: Interview Guidelines
1. Personal details
1.1. Age
1.2. Where born? Since when in Shetland? Ever lived anywhere else – where,
how long for? When and why returned to Shetland?
1.3. Employment status, source of income, job, education
1.4. Marital status, living conditions, children, etc.
2. Personal heroin using history
2.1. [Initiation of heroin use] When started using heroin? How and why started?
With whom? What kind of situation?
2.2. [Course and development of heroin use patterns until now] How did your
heroin use develop? Patterns of use changed over time? Which way?
Caused by what? Any relevant life experiences, which had an impact on
your use?
2.3. Changes in using patterns, how, why? How related to general changes in
heroin scene?
3. Current patterns of use
3.1. Frequency and amount? Depending on what, how often, and how much?
Route of administration? Always the same, changing – why?
3.2. Use of any other drugs? In what kind of relation to heroin use? Poly drug
use?
3.3. Heroin use has any influence on life style – work, leisure activities, circle
of friends etc.?
3.4. [Setting of heroin use] Could you describe the situations in which you are
using? Where, with whom (alone, friend(s), group of people, scene, etc.)?
On what kind of occasion?

A. Stallwitz, The Role of Community-Mindedness in the Self-Regulation of Drug
Cultures: A Case Study from the Shetland Islands, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3861-4,
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

367

368

Appendix

4. Personal meaning of heroin/heroin use (personal relationship to heroin use and
‘heroin high’)
4.1. [Set of heroin use] What are your expectations from your use? Your
motivations? Why you use?
4.2. Function of heroin use
4.3. [Cost and benefit] Good and downsides of heroin use
Attitudes towards personal use? E.g. clear and relaxed? Positive or
negative? Ambivalent? Need to justify in order to avoid cognitive and
emotional dissonances, inner conflicts between desire for ‘high’ and
society’s moral attitude, etc.?
4.4. Heroin use and awareness of own life/life style? Heroin use and philosophy
or ideology?
5. Heroin scene in Shetland
5.1. Is there a (main) heroin scene/subculture in Shetland? What is it like?
Characteristics?
5.2. Are there different heroin using subgroups or scenes? Can you describe
them in more detail (e.g. different age groups, different patterns of use,
different meaning of the drug etc.)?
5.3. What are the Shetland-specific characteristics in comparison to other urban
and rural scenes on the Scottish/English mainland?
5.4. What is the heroin scene like today compared to the past? Has it
changed?
6. Heroin use and identity (self-esteem and self-confidence)
6.1. Own social role within the broader and immediate Shetland community?
6.2. Would you describe yourself as belonging to a certain drug using
subculture/scene (these days)? If yes, could you describe this scene in
more detail?
6.3. Would you call yourself a heroin user, dope smoker, ‘boozer’, etc. (these
days)?
6.4. Relationship with societal and subcultural identity, identification with
subculture or rather general society?
6.5. Have you ever been involuntarily found out to be a heroin user (someone
previously not informed – who?) If yes, what were the consequences?
Reactions – e.g. sanctions – of friends, family, general community?
7. Control over personal heroin use
7.1. What do think about heroin and addiction?
7.2. In how far do you feel in charge of your substance use in general and your
heroin use in particular? Could you imagine to ever become ‘addicted’?
How?
7.3. Could you tell me a bit about your own norms, values, personal limits,
taboos regarding your heroin use/heroin use within your social circle?
What is acceptable, what is not? Any sanctions if limits not kept?
7.4. Are there certain rituals involved in your use?

Appendix

369

7.5. How do you keep control? Automatically? Consciously? If yes, can you
describe your ‘control mechanisms’ in detail? How did you acquire them
– learnt yourself? From friend(s)/heroin using scene? Have they always
been the same or changed over time, e.g. according to changing life
situation or life events?
7.6. How do you deal with cravings, other triggers?
7.7. Do you think to keep control over one’s heroin use is easier in Shetland
than anywhere else? If yes, can you outline that, please?

Appendix 2: Shetland, Scottish and British Slang and Dialect
General: ‘ou’ tends to become ‘oo’ (around – aroond, house – hoose, town – toon,
etc.); ‘o-sounds’ often become ‘ae’ (more – maer, into – intae, not – nae, etc.)
Aboot – about
Acid – LSD
Alang – along
Aroond – around
Bairn – child
A blast – a smoke of/snort of heroin
Blow – cannabis
Brown – heroin
To be busted – to be arrested by the police
Cannae – can’t
Coke – cocaine
Couldnae – couldn’t
Coupla – couple of
To dabble – to experiment with illicit drugs
Dat’s da ting – that’s the thing
Dope – cannabis; sometimes also used to refer to heroin
Dunno/dinnae – don’t know
DFs – Dihydrocodeine (prescription opiate)
Es – ecstasy tablets (MDMA)
Fae – from
Fuck all – nothing at all
Fucking – damned (in Scottish slang often tightly woven into the language)
To give someone a do in – to kill someone
Gonna – going to
Gotta – got to
To gouch – to be in a ‘wiped-out stage’ immediately after administering heroin
To grass – to peach, to denunciate
Habit/habited – physical dependence/physically dependent
Hoose – house

370

Appendix

Intae – into
To jag – to inject
Ken – you know/you know what I mean or also to know
Maer – more
Me as possessive pronoun – my
Nae – no
Ned – short for non-educated delinquent
Noo – now
Oot – out
Over yonder/thonder – similar to over there
Peerie – small
Peerie start – small
To rattle – to feel physical withdrawal symptoms
To shoot up – to inject
Skag – heroin
Smack – heroin
Sooth – South
Sorta – sort of
Speed – amphetamine
Tae – to
To take a toot – smoke or snort illegal drugs
This – can also mean ‘these’
Thon/yon – similar to that (e.g. pointing at something at some distance)
Toon – town
Tooter – tube used for snorting or smoking a powdered drug
To quit – to stop
Wife – woman
Wis – was

Appendix 3: Strengths and Limitations of the Study
The time for data collection, having been confined to two months, restricted the
sampling process in several ways. An additional month could have resulted in a
greater variety within the sample in terms of a more even distribution of using
patterns and of men and women. Additionally, very young users could possibly have
been included. Greater sample variety could have further widened and deepened the
knowledge of the social dynamics involved in the heroin scene. Systematic and
consistent theoretical sampling, according to the principles of grounded theory, was
not feasible within the available time span. Instead of conducting an interview,
transcribing and analysing it and deciding on this basis which interview partner
would be most suitable next, the restricted time only allowed for the writing
and analysing of theoretical memos. The interviews themselves could only be
transcribed and analysed after the author’s return to Germany. However, this

Appendix

371

shortcoming was compensated for by the very systematic, thorough and detailed
data analysis (cf. Sect. 3.7 of Part I).
Altogether the research process took five and a half years, which is explicable
in terms of the time-consuming nature of the individual process components.
These include the transcription and analysis of a relatively large number of partly
long interviews with persons who spoke in pronounced Shetland and Scottish
accents by a native German. Due to the long research process, the data are
meanwhile five and a half years old and therefore no longer reflect the current
state of the Shetland heroin scene. On the one hand, the lack of contemporary data
represents a disadvantage, since the results could have contributed earlier to the
development of effective approaches to drug treatment and policy on the Shetland
Islands specifically. On the other hand, the tracking of the heroin trend in Shetland
through the analysis of documents from local drug treatment and drug policy
agencies, relevant official statistics, newspaper articles and anecdotal information
still allows for an assessment of the momentary situation. Moreover, the heroin
scene’s historical perspective, as reconstructed in Sect. 8 of Part II, permits a
classification of the scene according to the evolutionary model of Golub et al.
(2004). In this respect, extra expressiveness is even gained, as the application of the
evolutionary model increases in reliability in retrospect. In general, the historical
relevance and expressiveness of the data might therefore only increase when
analysing the past.
The strengths of the investigation include the unique research perspective
under the laboratory conditions resulting from the Shetland-specific macro-social
particularities, such as the small size of the island and the island population and the
geographic isolation. Further strong points constitute the inclusion of both habitual,
socially marginalised and non-habitual, socially integrated heroin users as well as of
quantitative and media information to complement the qualitative interview data.
Extensive social networking assisted in accessing non-treatment heroin users, who
belong to a difficult to access, hidden population (Fountain 2000). The recruitment
of occasional heroin users in particular, tends to be very time consuming and difficult
(Kemmesies 2004). Although the diversity within the sample could have been
further increased if more time would have been available for data collection, the
existing sample variety was nevertheless large compared to other studies of this
type. Through an informal and open communication style, the author could obtain
first-hand information from different perspectives about many aspects related to the
highly sensitive research topic. Throughout the whole research and writing process,
the author entertained a continuous exchange with a wide range of professionals and
experts in the field of drugs research and qualitative methods as well as practitioners in
drugs treatment in Germany, Great Britain and Shetland, who critically commented
on the research process. By this means, the research matter was illuminated from
many different angles, which assisted in increasing the level of analytical depth and
theoretical abstraction of each chapter. The author’s prior knowledge of the research
area based on two previous studies (Stallwitz and Shewan 2004; Stallwitz 2007)
provided the opportunity of conducting the overall research process and especially
the data collection in a target-oriented and focussed manner.

Index

A
Adler, A., 174, 295, 357
Agar, M., 29, 63, 318
Availability of heroin in Shetland
access to heroin, 128, 164–166, 278
coping strategies to compensate for
restricted availability, 129–130
drought/s, 127
intermittent supply, 127
restricted availability, 127

B
Barnard, M., 3, 6, 18, 32, 33, 37, 43
Becker, H.S., 16, 298
Benefits, 27, 62, 115–117, 127, 131, 144,
149, 159, 176, 178, 189, 236, 241,
249, 304, 341
Shetland heroin users on, 117, 131, 176

C
CADSS. See Community Alcohol & Drugs
Service Shetland (CADSS)
Casey, J.J., 20, 321, 322
CDT. See Shetland Community Drugs Team
(CDT)
Commercialisation, 138, 194, 195, 197–199,
209, 212–223, 226, 230, 240–242,
246, 247, 260, 261, 263, 269, 270,
272, 273, 284–285, 287, 290, 302,
306, 307, 313, 315–318, 324, 348,
349, 364
Community Alcohol & Drugs Service
Shetland (CADSS), 41–42, 327–330,
332, 333, 342, 348, 349

Community-mindedness
cliquey/ness, 119, 147, 161, 162, 174, 175,
177–178, 185, 193, 247, 270, 280
definition of, 119
destabilising effect of equilibrium and
social integration of a subculture,
358, 359
in-group/out-group, 147, 193, 194, 271,
272, 280, 298–300
pro-social, 291, 295, 299, 301, 306, 308,
344, 356, 361
protection against crime, 118–120
related concepts, 147, 174, 265,
295, 365
social care, 119, 267, 271–272, 343, 359
stabilising effect of equilibrium and social
integration of a subculture, 358, 359
Conditional matrix (according to Strauss &
Corbin), 316
Controlled drug use
control of crack/cocaine use, 12, 13, 24
definitions of, 12–13
the role of rituals, 307
Controlled heroin use
control of heroin use, 13, 24–26, 197
definitions of, 13
practical application of findings from
research on, 26–27
Cornejo, C., 71, 72, 265, 323
Criminalisation of drug cultures, 356, 358,
361, 364
Cultural psychology
definition of culture, 72
meta-theoretical framework of this study,
71–72
research angles, 72

A. Stallwitz, The Role of Community-Mindedness in the Self-Regulation of Drug
Cultures: A Case Study from the Shetland Islands, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-3861-4_2,
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

373

374

Index

Culture, 4, 6, 7, 17, 23, 28, 33, 38, 40, 45,
71–72, 74, 92, 95–96, 108, 151, 155,
163, 174, 177, 178, 180, 183, 185,
186, 191, 200, 209, 212–214, 238,
239, 241, 258, 264, 268, 273–275,
282, 284, 287, 288, 303, 306–308,
342–343, 347, 351, 355
definition of (according to cultural
psychology), 72
Curtis, R., 313–316, 321–324, 351, 365

Drug use
controlled use, 3, 13, 22–27
dependent drug use, 22, 59
non-urban, 31–34
party drug use, 101, 102, 284
problematic use, 11–12, 21, 23–24, 36,
105, 145
recreational use, 76, 260
socially integrated use, 23
unproblematic use, 11–14, 25

D
Data analysis of this study, 84
participant perspectives and reality
understanding, 92
Drug markets/distribution systems
closed market/s, 313–315
communal business/es, 316, 317
corporation/s, 316, 317
family business/es, 316, 317
fragmented, non-hierarchical
entrepreneurial market, 316
freelancer/s, 316, 317
market system/s, 313, 316
open market/s, 313, 314
organisational structure, 317–318
recent developments
within drug markets, 315
social cohesion, 317
social network market/s, 314
structured pyramidical system, 316
trajectories, 318–319
Drug, set, and setting, 23–24
Drugs research
on drug use in rural Arabia, 37–40
on drug use in rural Asia, 37–40
on drug use in rural Australia, 35
on drug use in rural Central-America,
37–40
on drug use in rural England and Scotland,
36–37
on drug use in rural Europe, 36
on drug use in rural Polynesia, 37–40
on drug use in rural U.S. America, 34–35
on drug use in rural very remote North
America, 38–40
on drug use in Shetland, 41–45, 60
location-specific
non-urban, 31–37
qualitative, 6, 19–21, 28, 60, 62–64
Drug trend, 40, 195, 214, 215, 228, 257,
263, 266, 286, 326–333, 348, 351,
359, 364

E
EMCDDA. See European Monitoring for
Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA)
European Monitoring for Drugs and Drug
Addiction (EMCDDA), 3, 11, 12, 60,
62, 328, 330, 331, 348, 362, 363
Explosion of injecting in Shetland, 137, 212
Explosion of Shetland drug scene, 195
Explosion of Shetland heroin scene
“flood gates opened,” 223–242
“heroin in bulk,” 228, 286
“wholesale supply,” 228–229, 286

F
Feldman, H.W., 29, 321
Fountain, J., 20, 23, 60, 62

G
Gemeinschaftsgefühl (according to Adler),
174, 357
Glaser, B., 64–66, 69, 73, 76, 84, 265
Golub, A., 28, 304, 347–349, 357
Grounded theory
historical and epistemological roots, 64–66
methodological foundation of this study,
64–68
the principles of, 66–68
Grund, J.-P., 4, 24, 27, 28, 30, 31, 63,
296–300, 302–307, 318, 362

H
Harding, W.M., 3, 4, 13, 22, 23, 27, 299
Heroin in Shetland
community-mindedness, 6, 118–120,
160–195, 266–272, 275, 342
crime, 107, 108, 114–122, 126, 265, 275,
338, 341–342
cultural, and socio-economic particularities
of the Shetland Islands, 341

Index
culture, 5, 109, 126, 142, 151, 153, 196,
201, 203
geographic location, 44, 342
living life on the edge, 342
in relation to the location-specific
geographic, 341, 342
socio-economic situation, 341
Heroin markets, 7, 110, 129, 131, 132,
207–209, 217, 224, 227, 228, 230, 234,
257, 258, 261, 262, 271, 279, 283, 286,
288, 298, 307, 314, 315, 319, 321–324,
337, 338, 342, 344, 355
and scenes in New York, 322–324
Heroin research
conventional, 4, 12, 18
research limitations/restrictions, 26
traditional samples, 18, 23
Heroin scene/subculture/culture
research on, 28–31, 63, 69, 71, 72, 78, 92,
108, 365
in urban areas, 34
Heroin trend
age of onset of heroin use, 329–330
age of onset of injecting, 331–333
amphetamine use, 328, 330
British, 284, 287, 325–333
drug deaths, 328, 333
globalisation, 34
intravenous drug use in the previous
month, 331
intravenous heroin use, 331–332
new clients, 327, 328, 330, 331, 333
prevalence of hepatitis C, 332–333
prevalence of heroin use, 328–329
Scottish, 325–333
sharing of syringes
in the previous month, 332
Shetland, 325–333
Heroin use
association with urban areas/urban
deprivation, 3
controlled heroin use, 13, 22–23, 26–27,
31, 44, 74, 296, 302, 303, 306
conventional wisdom associated with, 3,
63, 299
dependent heroin use, 177, 206
destructive heroin use, 3, 18, 74, 100, 105,
150, 192, 241, 248, 250, 255, 344
equation with heroin abuse/addiction, 3,
17–18
morally unacceptable, 182, 236
in non-urban areas, 31–32
occasional heroin use,
22, 188, 258

375
problematic heroin use, 11–13, 158
recreational heroin use, 196, 256
socially integrated use, 17, 23, 357
socially marginalised use, 143
Heroin use in Shetland, 5, 7, 19, 44–45, 73,
75, 107–109, 113, 126, 140, 196, 241,
255, 256, 328, 333, 348
media information/reports on,
45, 337–339
Heroin users
controlled heroin users, 23, 44, 74, 296,
302, 303
occasional heroin users, 77, 154, 181,
303, 305
problematic heroin users, 19–21
recreational heroin users, 196, 256
socially integrated users, 357

I
Information Services Division Scotland (ISD
Scotland), 327–332
Internal structure of the Shetland
heroin scene
contact between groups and circle, 278
dealing, 149, 152, 159, 163–172, 175, 178,
179, 279–280
distributing, 164–166, 169, 170, 279
internal structure, 139–198, 277–280
scene involvement, 156, 162–166, 278
scene position, 278
small group supply, 279
supply network/structures, 279–280
Interview guidelines/schedule of this study,
7, 74, 81
Interviews
with clients, 75, 77
with non-clients, 77–78, 83, 91
with occasional users, 76–78
with Shetland heroin users, 6, 60, 74, 121,
157, 277, 299, 318, 332, 342
ISD Scotland. See Information Services
Division Scotland (ISD Scotland)

J
Junkie
manners, 237, 239, 287, 306
tendencies, 182, 183, 192, 264, 280

K
Kemmesies, U., 3, 4, 13, 14, 22, 24, 25, 27,
31, 296, 302–305, 343

376
L
Lalander, P., 4, 30, 31, 216, 296, 299–307,
318, 324
Liverpool connection, 227–228, 230, 239, 260,
286, 315, 338
‘Living life on the edge,’ 144, 145, 278,
306, 342
Location-specific
aspects of drug/heroin use, 41
drugs research, 37–40
drugs research in Scotland, 40–41
drug use, 31–41
heroin use, 31–32, 341–344
laboratory situation of the Shetland
Islands, 45–46
particularities of Shetland, 7, 33, 59
particularities of the Shetland
heroin scene, 69, 91, 241, 257, 263,
265, 344, 355
Lucchini, R., 4, 17, 309, 333, 351

M
Macro-social level, 194, 265, 266
May, T., 6, 74, 309, 313–318, 322, 342
McKeganey, N., 20, 21
McSweeney, T., 13, 22, 24, 309, 313–316
Methodology of this study
confidentiality, 82–83
data collection and interview conditions,
81–82
grounded theory, 60, 64–68
interview setting, 81
participant characteristics, 77–78
participant criteria, 74–75
procedure, 61, 64, 67, 68, 74–83
qualitative, 59–64
research instrument, 78–81
research location and design, 74
sampling, 75–77
semi-structured in depth interviews,
59–61
Micro-social level, 69, 194, 195, 265, 349,
357, 358, 361
Model of self-regulation and social integration
of drug cultures
practical recommendations derived from
the model, 360–364
recommendations concerning society’s
dealing with illicit drug use,
364–365
in relation to the micro-and macro-social
conditions illustrated by the example of
a heroin subculture, 360

Index
P
Preble, E., 20, 321, 322
Preconceptions concerning this study, 17,
73–74
Prison connection, 197, 239, 240, 287, 339, 343
Problematic (uncontrolled) drug use, 11–13,
21, 23–24, 36, 105, 145, 158, 308,
342, 358
definitions of, 11–12
Process model of the Shetland heroin scene,
83, 252, 253, 266
Prostitution in Shetland, 117, 118, 121,
241, 275
‘skag slags,’ 117–118

Q
Qualitative drugs research
qualitative heroin studies, 19–21
status and role of, 62–64
Qualitative methods
criteria for the employment of qualitative
methods in drugs research, 60
within the social sciences, 61–62

R
Research focus
development and specification of research
perspective, 71
research aim, 46–47
research perspective, 71
Research question of this study
original research question, 47
revised research question, 71
Rhodes, T., 20, 60, 62
Rural
definition of, 32
rurality of Shetland, 32–33

S
Self-regulation and social integration
of drug cultures
global threats, 359
protection factors of the community, 356
protection factors of the subculture, 356
risk factors of the community,
355, 356, 359
risk factors of the subculture,
355, 356, 359
Shetland alcohol culture, 6, 41, 42, 95–96,
327, 333
excessiveness, 102, 103, 135–136

Index
Shetland Community Drugs Team (CDT), 6,
41, 42, 74, 75, 77, 81, 109, 327–329,
332, 333, 341, 342, 344, 348, 349
Shetland drug scene
amphetamine/s, 98–99, 103
availability of benzodiazepines,
100–101
availability of cannabis, 99
availability of crack/cocaine, 100
availability of drugs, 101–102
cocaine, 96, 98–102, 104, 105
crack, 100
crime, 97, 100, 105
drought/s, 98, 99
drug deaths, 333
ecstasy (MDMA), 98, 99
excessiveness, 102–104
historical roots, 96
intravenous use, 104–105
male/female ratio, 97–98, 111–113
nature and mentality, 97
poly drug use, 99
problematic use, 105
quality and prices, 102
substitution of one drug with another, 330
Shetland heroin scene
accessibility of heroin, 126, 163, 224
age range, 110–111, 119, 233, 276
availability of heroin, 98, 126, 127, 227
blood-borne viruses, 122–124,
126–133
compared to heroin scenes on the urban
mainland, 126, 136–137
control of, 24–26, 197
dependent use, 26, 236
descriptive characteristics, 6, 107–138,
275–277
excessiveness, 102–104, 135–136
female/male ratio, 97–98, 111–113
financing use and habit, 113–116
harmful use, 236
heavy use, 121–122, 172, 270
hepatitis C, 122–124, 126, 141, 275, 332
heroin use associated problems,
113–126
high risk behaviour, 124, 126
intravenous use, 104–105, 256–257
location of, 5, 45, 131, 216, 276
nature of, 5, 29, 46, 64, 82, 91, 92, 113,
126, 139, 140, 205, 209, 217, 230, 241,
247, 266, 268, 274, 283, 287, 307, 322,
344, 351, 365
noticeability of, 107–108
price of heroin, 229

377
quality of heroin, 229, 251–253, 289
size of, 108–109, 175, 178, 276
smoking use, 18, 79, 258, 349
(demand for) treatment, 211
Shetland heroin scene from a historical
perspective
addiction, 112, 113, 121, 122, 133, 197,
201, 226, 242, 248, 257, 270, 271, 274,
277, 281, 286, 287, 289, 299
changes of the Shetland heroin scene,
240, 281
commercialisation, 138, 194, 197, 199,
223, 226, 230, 240–242, 247, 261, 263,
287, 290, 307, 315, 317, 318, 348, 364
commercial peak, 199, 217, 223–242, 244,
246–249, 259, 261, 270, 287, 288, 299,
307, 314, 315, 317, 318, 324, 337, 347,
348, 351
conditions of change, 205–206, 282, 284
contained commercialization, 199,
212–223, 230, 240, 242, 247, 261, 270,
272, 290, 307, 315, 317, 318, 348, 349
current fragmentation, 199, 243, 251, 257,
261, 263, 270–271, 289, 314, 315, 317,
318, 348, 349
dogs against drugs, 245, 337
early days, 199–206, 247, 259, 267–268,
281, 290–291, 307, 314, 315, 317,
344, 348
era of the old school, 199, 206–212, 216,
218, 247, 261, 290, 317, 348
fragmentation of the heroin supply and
using network, 245–248
future prognosis, 7, 261–263,
351–352
good old days, 204–205, 267, 282
hippies, 158, 192, 200–207, 258, 274,
281, 349
loss of control, 14, 231, 232, 242, 270,
285, 303, 304
main dealer/s, 192, 218–219, 231, 244,
247, 269, 285, 288, 291, 315, 317,
337, 349
normalisation, 212–215, 260, 263, 326
oil workers, 33, 158, 200–207, 258, 274,
281, 282, 349
problematic tendencies, 151, 233–240,
291, 356
(impact of) rave era, 45, 212–214, 223,
284, 285, 326
shift from party drugs to heroin,
214–215, 284
urbanisation, 45, 138, 241, 260–261, 263,
287, 290

378
Shetland heroin scene mentality
cliquey/ness, 110, 119, 177, 178, 190, 193,
244, 246, 247, 262, 280
community-minded, 119, 122, 167,
173–180, 185, 193, 194, 197, 247,
265–272, 276, 279, 290–291, 343
control norms and rules, 278, 357
grassers, 178, 180
ideational (use), 203–204, 207, 267, 282,
290–291, 301, 308, 349
junkie manners/mentality, 237, 239,
287, 306
mainland mentality, 120, 182–183, 280
norms, 29, 31–33, 44–45, 140, 158, 159,
162, 167, 173, 176, 180, 182–193, 197,
204, 207, 221, 225, 226, 231, 232, 235,
236, 240, 242, 258, 259, 266–271, 278,
282, 285–291, 296, 298–301, 306, 308,
309, 316–318, 323, 333, 343, 347, 349,
351, 355–361, 363
norms/rules of the old school, 191–193,
268, 285
responsible use/users, 96, 232
rituals, 23, 24, 27, 30, 140, 184–193, 258,
278, 297, 300, 301, 306–308
rules, 44, 140, 158, 162, 176, 184–193,
197, 207, 219, 221, 225, 226, 232, 236,
242, 266–268, 278, 282, 290–291,
296–304, 306, 308, 309, 333, 347, 349,
351, 355, 357, 359–361, 363, 364
secrecy, 136, 142, 143, 155, 156, 161, 180,
186, 194, 220, 225, 226, 232, 241, 242,
246, 248, 256, 268, 269, 271, 275–277,
286, 287, 297, 300, 301, 304, 306, 308,
309, 317, 323, 349, 355, 359
sordid, 197, 237, 298
Shetland mentality
acceptability of drugs, 101–102
acceptability of heroin, 260
excessive substance use, 102, 103, 135,
229, 286
openness to experiment
with substances, 216
social control, 275, 299, 344
stigmatisation of drugs/heroin,
189, 343, 347
treatment barrier, 188, 189
Shetland party culture, 213, 275, 284
Shetland police, 119, 297, 338
Shewan, D., 4, 5, 15–17, 22, 23, 25, 44, 45,
60, 73, 75
Social control of drug/heroin use
control rules and norms, 278, 357
occasional users, 121, 127, 357

Index
sanctions, 23, 24, 116, 119, 124–126, 142,
174, 185, 186, 188, 189, 192, 194, 196,
301, 306, 356, 357, 359
Socially integrated drug use, 296
definitions of, 296
Soothmoother/s
exclusion, 178, 193
impact, 151, 183, 238
prejudice, 178, 181, 193
Spectrum of using patterns, 13
Spunt, B., 29, 298, 313, 314, 321–324, 365
Stallwitz, A., 5, 44, 45, 60, 73, 75, 95, 119,
136, 145, 186, 295, 326, 328–330, 332,
341, 342, 344
Strauss, A., 63–70, 72, 76, 92, 265, 316, 323
Strengths and limitations of the study, 7
Structural model of the heroin scene before
commercialisation, 195

T
Theoretical approach to explaining the
evolution of drug eras
decline phase, 248
expansion phase, 347, 348, 351
incubation phase, 347, 348, 357
plateau phase, 347, 348, 351, 357
Theories of drug use/heroin use
deficiency oriented approaches, 14–17
medical (disease) model, 15, 17
neuroscientific theories, 15
psychological model, 16
receptor-model, 15–16
risk and protection factor approach, 15
sociological models, 16–17

U
Urban heroin scene/s
trajectories, 16, 17, 318–319, 323, 355
transitions, 7, 20, 69, 137–138, 197–198,
203, 321–324, 355
Urbanisation of the Shetland heroin scene, 45,
241, 260–261, 263, 287, 290
User groups (within the Shetland heroin scene)
destructive user/s, 18, 142, 248
female users, 140, 155–156, 187, 188,
277, 278
‘full-time users,’ 148–149
heavy employed user/s, 143–147
heavy user/s, 12, 116, 128, 130, 143–151,
161, 165, 234, 237, 248, 250, 271, 278,
298, 304, 307, 358
hidden users, 74–76, 82, 109

Index
occasional users, 77–78, 143, 152,
154–155, 188, 271, 304–307
old school user/s, 159, 160, 163, 225, 246,
258, 268, 301
original crew, 157–159, 200, 258, 267,
281–283, 289, 301, 307, 348
socially/socio-economically integrated
user/s, 141
socially/socio-economically marginalised
user/s, 15, 16, 30, 141, 142
users in the countryside, 156–157
young users, 44, 110, 160, 196

379
W
Warburton, H., 3, 4, 13, 14, 22, 24

Y
Young, M., 298, 301, 321, 325, 332,
360, 362

Z
Zinberg, N.E., 3–5, 13, 14, 22–24, 27, 298,
299, 303, 307, 347