Exploring prison drug use in the context of prison-based drug rehabilitation

Abstract

Aims: The research on motivations and meanings associated with drug use in prisons has received little scholarly attention. Particularly, there are few studies analysing drug use in prisons from the perspective of both prisoners and prison officers, and in the context of prison-based drug rehabilitation. This article explores prisoners and prison staffs perceptions on why drug use occurs in prison. Methods: The data is derived from participant observation and qualitative interviews (N = 35) conducted during eight months of ethnographic fieldwork in two drug rehabilitation programmes in a closed Norwegian prison. Findings: Prison staff emphasises drug addiction and prisoners troubled life trajectories when explaining in-prison drug use. Prisoners, on the other hand, explain that drug use can be (a) a way to alleviate some of the pains of imprisonment; (b) an integral part of social life in prison; (c) a route to status in the prisoner community and (d) a defiant way to subvert institutional rules and expectations. Conclusions: Prison staff tends to privilege pre-prison characteristics when explaining prisoners’ drug use, whereas prisoners tend to privilege how the prison context motivates and give meaning to their drug use. Implications for penal policy and practice are discussed.

• Addiction
• criminal justice
• drugs misuse
• ethnography
• illicit drugs
• offenders
• opiate use
• rehabilitation
• subculture
• treatment compliance

Introduction

In many western countries, there is an overrepresentation of drug users in prisons (CASA, 2010; EMCDDA, 2012). In Norway, 60–70% of prisoners report illicit drug use in the month prior to imprisonment (Friestad & Hansen, 2005), and approximately 50% of prisoners are considered to have a serious drug problem (Ødegård, 2008). Although most drug users tend to reduce their drug taking behaviour while incarcerated (Stöver, Weilandt, Zurhold, Hartwig, & Thane, 2008), a comprehensive body of research shows that drug use is common in prison settings (e.g. Boys et al., 2002; Stöver & Weilandt, 2007; Strang et al., 2006). In a review of the figures from 15 European countries, the prevalence of in-prison drug use ranges from 2% to 56% (EMCDDA, 2012, p. 10). The most commonly used drugs are cannabis, cocaine and heroin (EMCDDA, 2012). Studies also indicate that many drug users change their drug use patterns while incarcerated. There is a tendency that individuals, who use stimulants such as amphetamines prior to imprisonment, use drugs with sedative and calming effects, such as heroin, tranquilisers or cannabis, during imprisonment (Boys et al., 2002; Bullock, 2003; Plugge, Yudkin, & Douglas, 2009). More generally, it is argued that the extent of drug use in prisons derives from a complex interaction between factors such as availability, drug control strategies and the drugs psychopharmacological properties (Bullock, 2003; Penfold, Turnbull, & Webster, 2005; Stöver et al., 2008). Imprisonment as such does not appear to motivate prisoners to reduce their drug taking behaviour in prison (Stöver et al., 2008, p. 53).

Compared with the extensive research on prevalence and patterns of drug use in prisons, qualitative research exploring the meanings and motives of drug use in prison settings have received less attention. The studies that exist are mainly conducted in the UK, and they are most often based on interviews with either prisoners or prison staff (but see Keene, 1997; Ritter, Broers, & Elger, 2013). This article aims at filling some of the gaps in the literature on why prisoners use drugs. Based on ethnographic data from eight months of participant observation in a high-security Norwegian prison, I explore both prisoner’s and prison staff’s perceptions on drug use in prisons. By doing so, I make two contributions to the research literature. First, the article offers a study of drug use in the context of prison-based drug rehabilitation. There has been a rapid increase in prison-based drug rehabilitation in the Nordic countries the last 15 years (Kolind, Frank, Lindberg, & Tourunen, 2013), and research has shown that prison-based drug rehabilitation may reduce the demand for illegal drugs in prisons (Hedrich et al., 2012; Penfold et al., 2005). The article seeks to investigate how drug use is perceived and handled by participants and staff in two different drug rehabilitation programmes in a Norwegian prison. Second, the article explores the perceptions on drug use from the group who uses drugs (prisoners) and the group who tries to prevent, detect, sanction and treat drug use (prison staff) in prison. Through this exploration, the article seeks to broaden our understanding of the meanings and handlings of drug use in prison.

Meanings and motives associated with drug use in prisons

A common denominator in the literature on meanings and motives associated with drug use in prison is the emphasis upon how drug use is shaped by the institutional and emotional context of imprisonment (Bullock, 2003; Cope, 2000; Crewe, 2005, 2009; Keene, 1997; Tompkins, Wright, Waterman, & Sheard, 2009; Wilson et al., 2007). Crewe, in his comprehensive ethnographic study in an English prison, argues that cannabis and heroin were the most commonly used prion drugs because:

[…] both drug types are reported to aid relaxation, relieve stress and counteract boredom. More specifically, heroin’s attraction lies partly in the way that it “kills time,” alleviates anxiety and allows the user a temporary escape from reality. (2005, p. 463)

Keene (1997) makes a related argument based on the preference for cannabis and tranquilisers in the British prison he studied. The use of these drugs, Keene argues, make prisoners better able to cope with the hardships of imprisonment. Drug use is thus interpreted as a form of self-medication. Bullock (2003) explores motives for prison drug use based on structured interviews with 500 prisoners and probationers in the UK. The most common reasons given for their drug use were “relaxation” and “to relieve boredom” (Bullock, 2003, p. 33). “Enjoyment” was a common reason for cannabis use, whereas “to block out current situation” was a commonly reported reason for heroin use (Bullock, 2003). Cope (2000), reporting from a study of drug use among young offenders, highlight how the study participants deliberately used cannabis to seek “the right high” in order to pass their time. Taken together, the research reviewed here suggests, first, that prisoners use drugs such as cannabis, heroin and tranquilisers because they offer drug effects that are compatible with the prison environment and experience, and second, that drug use is a “coping strategy” (Cohen & Taylor, 1972), intended to “alleviate the everyday pains of imprisonment” (Crewe, 2005, p. 477).

Although the literature reviewed above emphasises that drug use is shaped by the institutional context of the prison, several studies also highlight the social characteristics of the prison population when explaining their drug taking behaviour in prison. Particularly, sustained drug use in prison is explained by the fact that many prisoners suffer from drug addiction and dependency, and their drug taking in prison is seen as a continuation of their addictive and habitual behaviours in the period before imprisonment (e.g. Crewe, 2005; Keene, 1997; Strang et al., 2006).

Conceptual framework

In the literature on prison drug use, two modes of explanation are proposed. One is concerned with the institutional context and environment, and the other is concerned with the pre-prison characteristics of the prisoners who use drugs in prison. These two explanatory modes thus refer to the classic debate between deprivation and importation theories in the study of prisoner’s behaviours and adaptations (e.g. Akers, Hayner, & Gruninger, 1974; Thomas, 1977). Whereas deprivation theories emphasises prison-specific factors, and privileges how the institutional context affect social action and processes, importation theories are more concerned with the biographical, psychological and social characteristics that prisoners bring with them, and how these factors shape prisoners experiences and actions during confinement (for a review of the debates, see Crewe, 2009, pp. 5–7). Although most would agree that both of these modes of explanation would be relevant, Crewe contends that there are few studies that “have provided a joined-up analysis of the connections between individual acts and experiences and the institutional contexts where they occur” (2009, p. 7). In the following, I aim to provide such a “joined-up analysis” by exploring prison staff and prisoner’s perceptions on drug use in prison through the lens of the importation-deprivation debate.

The Norwegian penal context

Due to the high-prevalence of substance abusers in prisons, and the close connection between drugs and crime, there has been a growing emphasis upon providing drug rehabilitation services in Norwegian prisons the last decades (Giertsen, 2012; Ødegård, 2008). In Norwegian prisons, the following services are offered: Drug rehabilitation units, opiate maintenance treatment (OMT), cognitive behavioural programmes targeting substance abuse, and structured “drug conversations.” Also, prisoners may serve part of their sentence in a drug treatment institution, pursuant to the Execution of sentences act, §12 (Giertsen, 2012; White Paper No. 37, 2007–2008).¹ Despite the current emphasis upon drug rehabilitation services, drugs are still seen as a threat to the security and order in Norwegian prisons (Giertsen, 2012; White Paper No. 37, 2007–2008). Hence, a range of drug control measures are at work in order to prevent drugs from becoming available in prisons, as well as to detect use, storage and distribution of drugs within prisons.

The most recent survey published on the prevalence of in-prison drug use in Norwegian prisons were conducted in 2002, and found that 1/3 of the respondents reported having used drugs during the present sentence (Ødegård, 2008). Cannabis was the drug most frequently used, followed by amphetamine and heroin (Ødegård, 2008). However, analysis of mandatory drug tests conducted in all Norwegian prisons suggests some new trends in drug use patterns in Norwegian prisons. They indicate that various benzodiazepines, cannabis, substitution drugs such as buprenorphine and methadone and amphetamines are the drugs now most frequently used (unpublished statistics for the year of 2011, Norwegian Ministry of Justice).

The ethnographic fieldwork discussed in this article was conducted in two drug rehabilitation programmes in a closed Norwegian prison which I will refer to as “Kollen prison.”² Kollen prison lies on the outskirts of a large Norwegian city (pop. <500,000), and has a capacity of a couple of hundred prisoners. The prison comprises a handful of closed wings in separate buildings, all of which are enclosed by a concrete wall. Each wing holds approximately 50 prisoners. In most wings, prisoners serve their time in living units that consist of 6 or 12 cells and a shared living room with a kitchen where meals are prepared.

The two drug rehabilitation programmes studied was a drug rehabilitation unit in wing 2 of the prison and an OMT unit in wing 3 of the prison.

The drug rehabilitation unit consisted of two living units, each with six cells and a shared living room with kitchen. The drug rehabilitation unit employed three drug counselors as well as a group of prison officers working mainly at the unit and two psychologists affiliated with the unit in part-time positions. The aim of the drug rehabilitation unit was to be a first step in a rehabilitative process, and to help the participants to better cope with their drug problems. Despite well-intended attempts at providing participants sound rehabilitative services, both prison staff and prisoners agreed that the drug rehabilitation unit did not live up to their expectations (see Mjåland & Lundeberg (2014) for a more thorough analysis). Two issues are particularly salient for the following analysis. First, the unit did not have a separate location – which research shows is one of the key factors for successful results when implementing drug rehabilitation programmes in prison (see Kolind, Frank, & Dahl, 2010, p. 47 for a summary of reviews) – and participants at the unit were free to socialise with the “regular” prisoners in the wing. Second, the recruitment of participants were often haphazard, as considerable pressure on available cells meant that staff at the drug rehabilitation unit could be forced to recruit new programme participants in only a few hours. The length of the stay at the drug rehabilitation unit varied greatly, but most participants during my study period spent several months at the unit. In practice, then, the participants were provided what could be described as “low intensity” rehabilitation, and their daily routines in prison (work or school) resembled for the most part those of regular prisoners.

The OMT unit was established mid-way through my fieldwork, with the aim of reducing the widespread diversion of buprenorphine in the prison. This aim was sought achieved by locating all OMT-enrolled prisoners in one unit and thereby limiting their contact with prisoners in other wings, as well as strengthening the control during dispensing of medications. During my research period, the number of incarcerated OMT patients varied between 20 and 30. With the establishment of the OMT unit, all prisoners enrolled in the OMT programme were placed there, and those who refused had to serve their time in the most restrictive wing of the prison.³ The prison authorities also aimed to improve services to the prisoners enrolled in the OMT programme, but no new rehabilitative measures were introduced during my study period (see Mjåland, 2015 for a more detailed description).

Methods and data

The article reports findings from a larger ethnographic study on drugs and drug rehabilitation in Kollen prison. The ethnographic fieldwork consisted of observations and open ended interviews with prisoners and prison staff, and lasted for eight months. It was mainly conducted in the drug rehabilitation unit in wing 2 of the prison, but when the OMT unit in wing 3 was established, the prison authorities allowed me to pursue my research interests here as well.

Typically, I spent three days a week at the prison, mostly “hanging around” and talking informally with prisoners. I wrote observation notes in the evening or the following day. The observation notes covered informal conversations between prisoners (and between prisoners and myself) as well as descriptions of practices I observed (e.g. staff meetings, dispensing of OMT medications). In addition to observational field notes, qualitative interviews were conducted, first with prisoners (23) and later with staff members (12). The interviews were open and semi-structured but shared some common themes. Views on and experiences with drug use and drug distribution were addressed in all of the interviews, both with prisoners and prison staff. The prisoners interviewed were all men, typically between 25 and 45 years old, and nearly all were ethnic Norwegians from or living in the nearby city. Most of them were serving (or expected to serve) a sentence of between 6 and 18 months, and most of them had considerable experience as injecting drug users of either heroin or amphetamine. All but two of the prisoners interviewed were recruited from the two drug rehabilitation programmes studied (15 from the drug rehabilitation unit, and 6 from the OMT unit). The prison staff I interviewed were all involved in the drug rehabilitation programmes in the prison, although in different positions: Six of them were prison officers (of whom two functioned as senior managers), two were drug counsellors, one was a psychologist, one a social worker, one a nurse in the municipal health care service of the prison and two were employed by the regional health enterprise (the data from the interview with these two health care officials are not used in the analysis that follows because they did not work in the prison and had little interaction with prisoners). All interviews were fully transcribed, and were together with the field notes coded thematically in NVivo 10.

Findings

The extent and character of drug use in Kollen prison

As reported in detail elsewhere (Mjåland, 2014), the most commonly used drug in Kollen prison, according to prisoners as well as prison staff, was buprenorphine. Other drugs reported to be used, although less frequently, was cannabis, benzodiazepines and amphetamine. The data at hand does not allow me to give any precise estimation of the extent of drug use in the prison. However, a substantial share of the prisoners I interviewed and came to know reported sporadically use, and quite a few reported daily use of small amounts of buprenorphine. A minority of the sample reported that they did not use drugs at all in the prison. According to prisoners, drugs became available in prison due to two main routes: (a) Prisoners imported drugs following reception, after leaves or furloughs, or after court appearances. As the drug control upon entrance to the prison was described as thorough, prisoners often carried the drugs in the body’s cavity; (b) Prisoners diverted legally prescribed drugs such as buprenorphine or different benzodiazepines during the dispensing of medicines. Most often, the prisoners claimed, they would then use some of the drugs themselves and distribute the rest of it to other prisoners. Contrary to the few other studies that are published on prison drug markets (e.g. Crewe, 2005, 2009; Penfold et al., 2005), drug exchange in Kollen prison did not follow market-based principles, but was rather organised as a gift-economy, where prisoners shared their drugs with vaguely stated expectations of receiving something in return in the future (Mjåland, 2014). A shared norm of reciprocating drug gifts made this form of exchange effective, and the stable supply of buprenorphine diverted from the dispensing of OMT helped produce a vibrant drug subculture in the prison.

Drug use as perceived by prison staff

Individual problems and addiction

The most common explanation of prison drug use that the staff members in my sample articulated was to emphasise the individual problems, and particularly the drug addiction, of the drug using prisoners. A typical statement was made by one of the drug counsellors at the drug rehabilitation unit:

You’ve got 60–70%, 80% perhaps, who are substance abusers. And of course, they don’t quit just like that … .when they come in here. That’s just how it is. (Interview, Hilde, drug counsellor)

Most of the staff in the study sample expressed similar views, and considered it unavoidable that some of the prisoners with heavy drug problems continued to use drugs in prison. As the other drug counsellor in the sample suggests, prison drug use should be seen in relation to the troubled pre-prison biographies of the prisoners:

And of course, when people, who use a lot of drugs, every day, come in here, well, they have been through a lot of things in their life. In the drug scene, in their childhood and adolescence. Many have lost contact with their families, they don’t have any place to live, they haven’t finished school, and they haven’t been employed for several years. Then, it’s a long way to go. And for many it’s become a habit, you know? So to believe that all of that disappears when one enters in here, in prison, well, it’s like to believe in Santa Claus. (Interview, Jeanette, drug counsellor).

According to this drug counsellor, the combination of prisoners troubled life trajectories and their habitual use of drugs before incarceration must be taken into account when understanding drug taking in prison.

In light of the troubled life trajectories of many of the imprisoned drug users, a common perception among staff members was to see prison drug use as self-medication, as this prison officer does:

It’s the way it is with most of the substance abusers we have in here, they don’t use drugs to get intoxicated, but they use drugs to get rid of their anxiety, their depression, to get rid of the problems they have and to make it through the day. So yes, I believe that the main motivation for a heavy substance abuser is the same outside prison as it is inside – it’s all about making it through the day in the best possible way. (Interview, Johs, prison officer)

According to this prison officer, drug use should be seen as an acquired way of dealing with problems, and the problems drug users face in prison are more or less the same as they face outside the prison walls.

Availability and lack of attention

The prison staff in my sample generally viewed prison drug use as expected behaviour due to the addiction and troubled life trajectories of the prisoners. In theoretical terms, they emphasised drug use as an imported phenomenon. However, several staff members also highlighted how prison-specific factors shaped the motives for and the extent of drug use. Two such factors emphasised by the interviewed staff members were the availability of drugs and the lack of attention to prisoners needs.

Regarding the first, a common view among prison staff was that the availability of drugs in the institution had a great impact on the extent of drug use:

This is a unit for people who have a substance abuse problem, so it goes without saying that it will be more drugs here than in other wings in this prison. Yeah, and it’s simply the availability that dictates the consumption. (Interview, Siren, prison officer)

The importance of availability on the extent of drug use in prisons is well documented in the literature (e.g. Penfold et al., 2005; Stöver et al., 2008). What Siri implies in the quote above, however, is that the availability of drugs is a particularly important explanation for drug use in a drug rehabilitation unit. Because participants in such units often suffer for drug addiction, they are easily compelled to use drugs when drugs become available.

A widely shared belief among prison staff was that prisoners who used drugs did so occasionally, and not permanently. Thus, for staff at the drug rehabilitation programmes, detected episodes of drug use spurred them to reflect upon the more immediate causes of drug taking in prison. For instance, the senior manager at the wing where the drug rehabilitation unit was located reflected like this when they discovered drug use in the wing:

Let’s say, if we’ve had a search and we have detected drugs, then we have to find out what it is about. Why do they choose, in unit 2 or 4 or wherever, to take drugs now? Have we been attentive? Have we been preoccupied for a longer time? What is it all about? (Interview, Hans-Tore, senior manager)

Drug use, according to this senior manager, may thus occur due to a lack of attention on behalf of the staff at the wing. Another prison officer suggested that drug use may occur because “we haven’t done well enough in our work with the inmate, we haven’t addressed his problems” (Interview, Johs, prison officer). These self-critical accounts should be interpreted in light of the aim of the drug rehabilitation unit, which was to help the participants to better cope with their drug problems. Detected episodes of drug use thus indicated that the prisoners had needs that were not effectively enough met by the rehabilitation services they were offered.

According to the prison staff in this study, the availability of drugs and the lack of attention to prisoners needs were contextual factors that helped explain drug use in the prison. However, these contextual factors seem, from the prison staff’s point of view, primarily to have a mediating role in explaining drug use. The drug addiction and drug dependency of prisoners are seen as the underlying cause of prison drug use, whereas the availability of drugs and the lack of attention to prisoners needs are context specific factors that might explain why some drug dependent prisoners use drugs on some occasions.

Drug use as perceived by prisoners

Alleviating the pains of imprisonment

Prison staff emphasised prisoners’ drug addiction and troubled life-trajectories as a cause of in-prison drug use. Whereas some of the prisoners identified themselves as drug addicted, others were clearly opposed to the view that they were suffering from a disease (i.e. addiction). Nonetheless, the clear majority of the sampled prisoners acknowledged that they used drugs in a way that was in some sense “problematic.” Interestingly, however, the prisoners seldom made reference to addiction or dependency in conversations about their drug taking in prison. Rather, a common view among the prisoners in my sample was that they deliberately used drugs in order to mitigate some of the “pains of imprisonment” (Sykes, 1958). For instance, when reflecting upon the extensive (illicit) use of buprenorphine in the prison, prisoners highlighted how the psychopharmacological effects of the drug helped them to better cope in the prison everyday life:

Yes, but that’s the good thing about buprenorphine, well, the first day you use it, you may seem a bit intoxicated. But otherwise it is very difficult to detect. That’s why it is such a fine prison drug. Like, it just takes away the anxiety with the nerves, and … you get a little … just as when you take a couple of tabs. (Interview, Knut, prisoner)

The popularity of drugs such as buprenorphine, according to Kjetil and many other prisoners was related to these drugs ability to reduce anxiety. Many prisoners also had trouble with sleeping well in prison, and claimed using drugs such as buprenorphine and cannabis helped them to sleep better.

A robust finding from the prison ethnographic tradition is that boredom is a widespread experience among prisoners (Bengtsson, 2012; Cohen & Taylor, 1972; Crewe, 2009), and my study participants also claimed that using drugs helped to make the sentence less boring. One of the prisoners put it like this:

It sucks to be in prison, then … then it just feels good when you can, say, smoke some weed. So it’s basically about getting a high, when everything else is low. (Interview, Jan, prisoner)

Related to the issue of countering boredom, drug use should also be seen in relation to the overall coping strategies of prisoners. Even though the prisoners in this study were enrolled in drug rehabilitation programmes, for many of them their primary motivation was to serve their sentence as easy as possible. A steady use of drugs were claimed to help them achieve that aim.

Drug use and community

In this prison, prisoners served together in living units consisting of six cells and a shared living room/kitchen. Prisoners thus socialised a lot. According to many of the study participants, drugs were not only used to alleviate personal troubles during the sentence, but drug use was also a part of social life in prison:

Knut: You know, the reason I take drugs in prison, it has something to do with, you go through hard times, like at Christmas, birthdays, you know? Or if there has been a death in the family, your girlfriend has her birthday, and it is occasions like that. Occasions you would want to forget. And then also … if it is drugs in the wing, you do of course want to … be a part of it too.

KM: Yes, so it’s about that as well?

Knut: Yeah, yeah.

KM: Like when something is happening on the wing, it feels good to be a part of it?

Knut: Mmm. (Interview, Bo, prisoner)

According to this prisoner, his drug taking in prison also had to do with the issue of being included in a community. Several other prisoners highlighted how drug taking and sharing were part of friendship relations in prison, and argued that the social proximity between prisoners had made drug use an integral part of social life in this prison. The topic of drugs and community came up somewhat differently in an interview with one of the few prisoners in my sample who did not regularly use drugs in prison:

Researcher: Do you say no to other things as well when you decline offers of drugs in here?

Even: … Yes … if you’re new in here that might be the case.

Researcher: Like you don’t get friends the same way, or …?

Even: Yeah, you do, but … but it’s really better if you say yes. And … yeah. Then you are … then, well people might trust you a little more. […] you get somewhat more accepted if you get high. (Interview, Even, prisoner)

A consequence of Evens decision to stay off drugs while in prison was that he was not that easily included and trusted in the community at his wing. For those who used and distributed drugs, however, drug taking and drug sharing was an important factor in producing and reproducing social relations in the prison. Contrary to other accounts in the literature, who portray prison drug use as individual acts and prison drug users as quite isolated in the prisoner community (e.g. Crewe 2005, 2009), I found that drug use in Kollen prison had a distinct social character, and that it had important inclusionary and exclusionary functions (see also Mjåland, 2014).

Drug use and status

According to several prisoners in my sample, prison drug use was also related to status. It was widely acknowledged that prisoners, who imported, distributed, and shared drugs could earn respect and achieve status for such actions (see also Crewe, 2005, 2009). One of the prisoners, Jan, responded like this when I asked him why he chose to import drugs:

Well … I don’t know, I guess it’s about having a little party at the unit, it’s a nice thing to do to the people who are feeling a bit low. You know, they might be suffering from withdrawal symptoms. And of course, when you have done it, then you get … should I say status, or perhaps that’s not the word I should use, but like … people respect you. They respect you in a completely different way, after you have done it. (Interview, Jan, prisoner)

The respect earned by importing and then sharing drugs may probably be related to the nerve it took to accomplish it in the face of risks such as penalties and sanctions, and to the generosity which is embedded in such drug-gifts (see also Crewe, 2005, p. 470; Mjåland, 2014). To use drugs in prison did not necessarily lead to respect, but, according to some of the prisoners I got to know, it could give status, particularly among the younger prisoners. Kjetil, an experienced prisoner in his fifties, made this point when he started to talk about a younger friend he had in a different wing of the prison:

Kjetil: And he has been doing fine, he has been a good kid, but I understand him as well. During Christmas, when everybody has something, and everybody wants something, you know, it’s very hard to say no, because then you are not cool, you know? He’s in the middle of his twenties, you know, and he doesn’t want to be worse than the others.

KM: Okay, I get it. Because some of the things I’m trying to find out are why prisoners use drugs in prison?

Kjetil: Status.

KM: Status, okay, but what is the status attached to it?

Kjetil: Well, then you are part of it, you are good, you are one of the lads. You see, the kids in here think that they are cool because they use drugs, you know, they believe they are somebody. (Interview, Kjetil, prisoner)

Kjetil illustrates the different opinions on the association between status and drug use in prison. On the one hand he claims that status is an important motivation for using drugs in prison, particularly among younger and less experienced prisoners. On the other hand, older and more experienced prisoners, as Kjetil and other prisoners of his age who I got to know, disapproved of such motivations and deemed them immature.

Defiance and protest

Several prisoners also highlighted how the use of drugs could be a meaningful subversive activity and a defiant way to protest against the prison regime. Jacob, a prisoner who was responsible for receiving and distributing drugs in his wing, made the following statement:

Straight people, who do not use drugs, come to me with shit. They take a fucking risk. By carrying it. To me, right? But, they do it, right, I do not like to expose them to such a situation, but I do it anyhow. And, and it has something to do with, the reward is to fuck the system. Right? You get, it gives such a great satisfaction to use stuff [drugs] in here. Because, it gives such a, it gives an extra, it is a feeling of coping, in every way. (Interview, Jacob, prisoner)

In the interview extract, Jacob emphasises the defiant pleasure he gets from using drugs in prison. This defiant pleasure should be interpreted in the proper context, where the use of drugs is forbidden, and where prison authorities and staff are preoccupied with preventing, detecting and sanctioning drug use. In a similar way, Ivar reflects upon why he chose to import cannabis in to the low security prison where he started serving his sentence, and then to share the cannabis with the other prisoners in the institution:

I like smoking cannabis. I don’t like when people prevent me from doing the things I like. So I see it as a challenge, sort of, to get it done. It is about me doing something in defiance. It is for me probably a bigger motive than anything else, to use so much money on, to through cannabis around me, even to people I don’t like. Simply then because I play a prank at the people who fuck up my life. (Interview, Ivar, prisoner)

As we see from the interview excerpts above, the use of drugs in prison becomes a symbolically rewarding activity, where prisoners who succeed in using and distributing drugs without getting caught are “getting one over” (Bosworth & Carrabine, 2001, p. 511). Jacobs “feeling of coping” when using drugs in prison suggests that prison drug use can be a way to, at least symbolically, challenge the “overall balance of forces in the prison” (ibid). Several of the other prisoners I came to know also framed their drug taking as a reaction towards what they perceived as repressive drug control measures and poor rehabilitation services (see also Mjåland, 2015).

Discussion and conclusion

In order to reach a better understanding of why prisoners use drugs, this article has explored prison staff and prisoners’ views on the subject matter. The analysis presented above shows some important differences between the two groups. Prison staff tend to emphasise prisoners’ drug addiction and troubled life trajectories as a main cause of drug taking during confinement. By doing so, they privilege pre-prison explanations and see prison drug use as mainly an imported problem (Akers et al., 1974; Thomas, 1977). Prison staff do however also acknowledge that prison-specific factors help explain in-prison drug use. The availability of drugs and the lack of attention to prisoners needs were seen as important factors that helped explain why some prisoners in the drug rehabilitation programmes used drugs on some occasions. Still, these more context specific factors were considered important mainly in light of the drug addiction and drug dependency of the prisoners. Prisoners, although acknowledging being “problematic” drug users in some sense or the other, seldom made reference to their addiction and/or troubled life trajectories in conversations about their drug use in the institution. Rather, based on the analysis of the data, four motivational factors were identified: (a) Drug use as a way to alleviate some of the “pains of imprisonment” (Sykes, 1958). Prisoners particularly claimed that using drugs helped them to reduce their anxiety, made them sleep better and mitigated feelings of boredom (see also Bullock, 2003; Cope, 2000; Crewe, 2009); (b) Drug use as a part of social life in prison. The analysis highlights the social character of drug taking in this prison. Using drugs together with other prisoners gave access to a community and a sense of belonging. Prisoners who did not use drugs did not have the same access to this community, and were more prone to be distrusted and suspected for being informers; (c) Drug use as a route to status. Prisoners, who imported, distributed and shared drugs could earn respect because they risked severe sanctions if caught, and because their actions benefited the many prisoners who were interested in using drugs in the prison (see also Crewe, 2005, 2009). The status involved when using drugs had a more ambivalent position. Older and more experienced prisoners claimed that being high in prison was a marker of status among younger and less experienced prisoners, because it demonstrated that they were “in” and included in the drug taking community in the wing; (d) Drug use as defiance and protest. Some of the prisoners claimed that using drugs in prison gave them a defiant satisfaction, and related this satisfaction to the illegal, subversive and secretive aspect of using drugs in the institution (Crewe, 2005). Seen as a whole, the prisoners in my sample placed considerable emphasis upon how prison specific factors motivated and gave meaning to their drug use.

In the introduction to this article, I briefly introduced the debate between “importation” and “deprivation” theories in explaining prisoner’s behaviours and adaptations in prison (for a review, see Crewe, 2009, pp. 5–7). Applied to the analysis presented above, we see that prison staff to a larger extent privilege “importation” perspectives in explaining in-prison drug use, whereas prisoners to a larger extent privilege a “deprivation” perspective. Despite important similarities between the two groups, particularly the emphasis individuals in both groups place on prison drug use as self-medication, these differences in perceptions need to be discussed. First, the drug rehabilitation context of the study is arguably important. The prison staff sample consisted of officers and counsellors working in two drug rehabilitation programmes. These staff members, although in different roles and with different means, sought to help participants to better cope with their drug problems. It is perhaps unsurprising that the staff members perceived the issue of in-prison drug use as primarily caused by the participants’ drug addiction and their troubled life trajectories, as precisely these issues are targeted through the rehabilitative interventions. Furthermore, the staff members’ emphasis on drug addiction may also reflect the influence of a more medicalised perception of drug problems that have appeared in the Norwegian context the last decades (Skretting, 2014). Second, the highly valued (masculine) norms in the prisoner community, stressing the importance of being strong, independent and capable (see, e.g. Ugelvik, 2014), may to some extent account for the less reference made to issues of addiction and dependency in the conversations and interviews with prisoners on topic of drug use in prison. Previous research has shown that individuals categorised as “junkies” and “crack heads” hold a particularly low status in prisons, because their addiction testifies weakness and a lack of control (Copes, Hochstetler, & Williams, 2008; Ugelvik, 2014). In such a normative environment, prisoners would perhaps be somewhat more reluctant to emphasise addiction and dependency as explanations for their drug use.

Previous research has argued that prison-based drug rehabilitation may reduce the demand for illegal drugs in prisons (Penfold et al., 2005; Hedrich et al., 2012). A surprising finding emerging from this study was the vibrant drug subculture that existed among prisoners who participated in the two drug rehabilitation programmes. This finding suggests that the rehabilitation offered did not succeed in providing participants an effective impetus for change. It also suggests that the prisoners had other motivations than abstinence for participating in the programmes (e.g. better sentencing conditions and social services). Finally, drug use, distribution and exchange were for some of the participants meaningful subversive and oppositional activities, and these activities should partly be interpreted as reactions towards perceived unfair and illegitimate practices in the drug rehabilitation programmes, most notably the strict drug control measures that were employed (for more detailed analysis, see Mjåland, 2015).

What are the implications of the findings reported in this article for penal policy and practice? A comprehensive body of research has documented that there is an overrepresentation of drug users in prisons throughout Europe, and that many prisoners continue to use drugs while imprisoned (EMCDDA, 2012; Fazel, Bains, & Doll, 2006; Stöver et al., 2008; Strang et al., 2006). Hence, it becomes imperative to understand the motives and meanings associated with the use of drugs in prisons. Issues of drug dependency, addiction and the troubled life history of many prisoners appear to be relevant explanations for prisoners continued use of drugs while incarcerated (Cope, 2000; Crewe, 2009; Keene, 1997). However, research has shown that many drug users stop, substantially reduce, and/or alter their drug taking when imprisoned, illustrating that other explanations are needed as well (Boys et al., 2002; Plugge et al., 2009; Stöver et al., 2008). In this article, and based on the prisoners own testimonies, I have emphasised how prison drug use can be a way to alleviate some of the pains of imprisonment; can be an integral part of social relations in prison everyday life; can be a route to status and reputation; and may be a defiant way to subvert institutional rules and expectations. If we are to develop sound policies and practices in the handling of drugs in prisons, we ought to recognise such meanings and motivations as well. This would require that we not only see prison drug use as a problem, or as caused by problems, but that we also inquire into the ways in which drug use become a meaningful and rewarding activity to pursue in prison.

This ethnographic study has limitations that need to be acknowledged. The characteristics of the sample of prisoners (i.e. heavy drug users) and prison staff (i.e. employed in drug rehabilitation programmes) observed and interviewed for the research used in this article, and the specific context of the two drug rehabilitation programmes, must be considered when interpreting the findings and considering their implications. For instance, the defiant meaning attached to drug use reported by some of the prisoners in this study should be seen in relation to the “legitimacy deficits” of the two drug rehabilitation programmes (see also Mjåland, 2015). Crucially, however, this should not solely be seen as a limitation regarding the empirical generalisability of the findings reported here, but also as an illustration of an important argument the article proposes, namely, that context specific analysis of how drug use is given meaning to by prisoners can tell us a great deal about how prisoners experience and perceive of the terms of their captivity. One implication of this line of argument would be that exploring the motives and meanings of in-prison drug use has unfulfilled potential in generating knowledge about the sociology of prison life.

Declaration of interest

The author reports no conflicts of interest. The research for this paper was financially supported by The Research Council of Norway, grant no. 202466. I am grateful to the two anonymous reviewers, as well as participants at a research seminar at Uni Research Rokkan Centre in May 2015, for helpful and constructive comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Notes

¹The growth in prison-based drug rehabilitation services the last 15 years has been remarkable in the Nordic countries (Kolind et al., 2013), yet the programmes reach only a fraction of the total drug using population in Norwegian prisons (Giertsen, 2012).

²The proper names of the prison and the city are withheld for ethical considerations. Similarly, all names of prisoners and prison staff quoted below are pseudonyms.

³When there were more OMT patients than cells in the OMT-unit, patients on buprenorphine had to stay in the most restrictive wing of the prison until a cell became vacant in the OMT unit.