One aspects of Dohan’s work is revealing about drug trades in general, he mentions how while many who deal aspire for upward mobility, he points out how few climb the ladder. Much like Venkatesh’s documented in Gang Leader for a Day, few low level dealers make any significant money. Rather, drug dealing enterprises typically operate in a pyramidal structure with middle men and those at the tope holding out the allure of making it big while exploiting labor of the low level dealers. Yet, Dohan also points to how gang’s in the Barrio serve as a form of social organization and control where traditional mechanism have disintegrated. In a similar vein, Anderson suggest the code of the street is a new form of organization and control when previous systems of control break down. Yet, Wilson’s , Anderson’s , Venkatesh’s and Dohan’s studies assumes that blocked opportunities and economic survival is what drives the sale of drugs. Consistent with this theory, many of the members of the group have been effectively barred from the mainstream economy as a result of stints in juvenile hall and jail. However, unlike drug markets dealing with harder drugs, the marijuana market is partially legal and overly saturated. In some cities, it is possible to find 30 or 40 delivery services. Much like the cannabis market in general, many delivery drivers view cannabis selling as an effective path towards economic viability and social mobility. The financial incentive for cannabis selling is only one component. Moreover, the high cost of running dispensaries and the extensive risk creates barriers other businesses do not face. For example, bank loans, credit card transactions, leasing units and security are all prohibitive costs for dispensaries. Moreover, greenhouse bench top in the middle class area of Orange County, one cannot claim the type of destitute and blocked economic opportunities that Wilson observed. Wilson’s study was conducted primarily in the innercity Chicago area, conditions far different from middle-class suburban white Orange County.

Although Wilson’s theories related to upward social mobility and economic motivations are partially correct, the Kings motivations are not inherently financial. Rather, they view selling and smoking as a symbol of prestige and disconformity to the system. Culture, ideology and counter cultural belief systems play a significant role in their motivations. As Natty explained, “We’re burning down Babylon.” In a similar light, social disorganization theories posit that conditions within urban lower class environments affect crime rates. Criminologists working within this paradigm, a perspective popularized by Chicago school criminologist McKay and Shaw , point to factors such as high-unemployment, large high-school dropout rates, deteriorated housing, poverty and large number of single parent households as contributing to despair and anti-social behavior and lack of resources to sustain social organizations and community institutions. Anti-social behavior manifests itself in ways that leads to higher crime rates in poor socially disorganized communities. Again, while it is commendable for criminologist to see delinquency, crime and drug use as emanating from social structure instead of individual pathology, an overemphasis by criminologist on focusing on poor communities has lead to a type of virtual blinders of crime and delinquent behavior elsewhere. In the middle class area of Orange County, drug use, both cannabis and other drugs, are fairly normalized. A focus on inner-city neighborhoods ignores the extensive drug use that occurs in middle class and affluent neighborhoods. Self-report surveys indicate the drug use and selling is, and has always been a phenomenon in every race and social class. As is illustrated in both surveys and my dissertation, middle-class white Americans are just as likely to use drugs as any other racial group. It appears that the main difference between the two groups drug selling and usage is the attention paid to each group by academics, researcher, the media and police.Elliot’s integrated delinquency model is a synthesis of various social process and strain theories into one comprehensive theory of drug use.

Elliot et al. argue that drug use is the result of bonding with deviant peer groups. As the social structure becomes more disorganized and the individual loses his/her pro-social ties to society, deviant peer groups fill the void for social interaction. This is a step above the rest as it synthesizes various approaches from the macro and micro level, yet its overemphasis on peer bonding downplays the fact that non-users report bonding with deviant peers . Harton and Latane note the importance of social approval in the process of using drugs. Consequently, Anderson suggests that meaning systems and new definitions of the self may be the more important explanatory factors that distinguish users from non-users. Accordingly, I suggest, that when viewing the group I am studying that it is relevant to understand the meaning and symbols to this particular culture when understanding their substance use and selling. The groups cultural beliefs will be briefly recapped later in this chapter. Theorists working in the labeling tradition typically point to two features. One, the social construction of crime and deviance; and two, the development of a criminal identity. As has been discussed throughout this dissertation, drugs historically have not had the same type of reaction that they elicit today. Many cultures consider mind-altering substances of all types gifts from Gods. Today, because of political and social forces, drugs are perceived as inherently dangerous and immoral. The second line of tradition labeling theorists operate within is the development of a deviant identity. Edwin Lemert first proposed this in 1951 when discussing why certain individuals persist in their criminal career trajectory. Lemert’s thesis is that, once labeled, the deviant undertakes an intellectual process that works to justify the behavior through the adoption of a deviant identity. One can clearly see this manifest itself with the Kings. Both Natty and Dorian were arrested and sent to Juvenile Hall at a relatively early age . Having thus been labeled by the society as deviants, they undertook an identity as deviants, took that identity, and turned it into a career trajectory.

Although many theorists working within a pro criminal justice paradigm believe juvenile hall serves as a means of rehabilitation for young kids, my research suggest the opposite. Instead of rehabilitating Natty, juvenile hall actually brought him into contact with Dorian, who would become his life-long friend and life-long cannabis business partner. In 1973, Edwin Schur wrote his seminal text Radical Non-Intervention in which he claimed that the delinquent label can actually increase delinquency. Natty was sent to juvie for a relatively minor offense that today is common place . Moreover, juvenile hall and the process of delinquent labeling has a tendency to reproduce race and class inequality. When deciding whether or not to proceed with a juvenile trial an intake officer takes a record of the juveniles’ history of mental health, history of substance use and other factors. Natty, being the child of a single mother that was addicted to drugs certainly influenced the intake officer to detain Natty. Again, juvenile hall many times has the opposite effect of rehabilitation. The fact that juvenile hall takes into account social demographics of the child into consideration when making decisions inherently reproduces racial and class inequality. This type of experience led to a strong and profound anti-systemic feeling within Natty and Dorian. In fact, The Kings Self-conception is so heavily influenced their identity as rebels and smokers that they nickname themselves off of cannabis substances. High-C is a reference to being high and TBC is a reference to THC . Natty is a reference to Dread locks. I changed the names of these individuals for confidentiality purposes, however, botanicare rolling benches their nicknames in real life are somewhat similar. Indeed, being shunned by society may have led to their radical anti-American, anti-capitalist stance. Much of their behavior is counter cultural in nature. Differential Association Differential association is highly applicable to the Kings. This theory posits that through interaction with other deviants, individuals learn the motivations, techniques, values and ideas conducive to criminal behavior . In fact, every one of the Kings mentioned peer influence when discussing their own motivations to use and sell cannabis. For both Natty and Dorian, their parents were drug addicts or at the very least, appeared to use drugs on a relatively consistent basis. Dorian’s father, before he was locked up, taught Dorian how to set up and run a growing operation and taught him a lot about the culture and some of the techniques on how to not be caught with cannabis. Natty’s mother was so permissive of drug use that she would buy alcohol for the Kings while they were still in high school. TBC and High-C were both experienced smokers before they decided to get in the medical marijuana business. Yet, they did not have the same family situation as Natty and Dorian. I personally doubt whether their parents or close family members were aware of their activities. However, their interactions with Natty and Dorian influenced them to fund the grow-op and collective. Moreover, it was particularly interesting how all of them seemed to have perceived cannabis as positive for society. This type of uniformity in thought may have been influenced by the fact that they discussed the nature of cannabis with each other and it is a social status symbol within the group to know about cannabis culture and history. Bruce Johnson’s subcultural model is a form of deviant subcultural theory. Johnson focused on a college setting in which users were separated from their parents and influenced by their teenage peers. Johnson argued that the more isolated an individual was from his parents and the more attached they were to the teenage subculture, the greater likelihood they would participate in drug use.

The relevance of Johnson’s articles is dual in that it focuses on the meanings ascribed to drug use, and the social and cultural context in which the use existed. Johnson acknowledges that there is a competition for prestige and status within peer groups and that status and prestige are attained by engaging in activities that depart from the normative demands of mainstream society. Another relevant aspect of Johnson’s study is his use of college students. Although he noted these individuals were more likely to drop out of school, it is relevant to note that the use of drugs is a product of all social and economic classes, and is not a product of a culture mired in pathology. However, although Johnson notes the inherently social nature of drug use, he digresses into moralistic judgments about how the use increases the likelihood of dropping out and participating in deviant sexual behavior, further illustrating the fact that criminology has yet to shake the conservative view of drugs as a problem in society in need of remedy. All of these previous theories and studies pointed to the fact that substance use is correlated with various other anti-social, deviant, or occasionally criminal acts. I suggest two reasons for these findings. For one, as a result of various laws and moral entrepreneurs that create anti-drug campaigns, drugs are demonized as illegal, harmful and injurious to society. Consequently, the more likely one is to hold unconventional views on society, the more likely they are to participate in unconventional behavior, of which drug use may be one. Secondly, these studies tended to focus on adolescents, who, while they experience a gap between biological and social maturity, undertake rebellious and anti-social attitudes to break out of the juvenile roles they existed in when children . Johnson’s subcultural, Elliot’s integrated delinquent, and Jessor and Jessor’s problem-prone behavior theories all focused onadolescents or teens. My study on the other hand, focused on young adults that ran a competent business. All of these studies tended to focus on adolescents that were experiencing a gap between biological and social maturity and therefore undertook rebellious attitudes and anti-social attitudes to break out of the juvenile roles they existed in when children . Moffit claims that there are two types of offenders, adolescent limited , and life course persisters . As adolescents transition into adulthood and take on more prosocial roles, the propensity for engaging in criminal offenses dissipates . This is relevant to understand why we see such high correlations between drug use and other types of anti-social behavior. It has less to do with the drugs as it does with particular life stages in American culture and the age of the group studied.