Drugs or Drug Policies: Where Is the Root of Crime

The question concerning whether drugs cause crime or if drug policies cause crime is one which has been discussed at length, however no real conclusion has been reached. In “Relationship between drugs and crime” essay there is an attempt to find out the right answer and analyse this controversial issue through different perspectives. For example Goldstein theorised the drugsviolence nexus, a tripartite conceptual framework which attempts to explain the relationship between drugs and crime. However, this theory has been built upon and debated further, with complex links between some forms of illicit drug use and crime having been reached by many studies. This essay aims to discuss these and come to a conclusion as to whether drugs cause crime, or rather if drug policies cause crime.

There has long been evidence of a link between drug use and crime, but this is not simple or linear, many drug users will commit crimes, but many others do not (aside from drug possession and use where these are criminalised); while a strong link between experimental drug use and offending has never been found, studies have often shown delinquency to precede involvement with drugs. The NEW-ADAM survey found that 69% of those arrested tested positive for at least one drug, and 36% for two or more, and Pierce et al looked at lifetime offending in opiate users and found those who suffer from opiate dependence tend to be disproportionately involved in crime. Parker, Newcombe and Bakx found that the rise in acquisitive crime in Wirral seemingly occurred in parallel with a rise in heroin use. The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act allowed police to drug test detainees, and found that 63%, 58% and 47% tested positive in Hackney, Nottingham, and Stafford and Cannock respectively; furthermore, Mott found that 6-24% of burglaries and 6-22% of all thefts could be attributed to heroin users. Moreover, National Treatment Outcome Research Study found drug treatment to cause significant reductions in criminal offending, despite this not being a primary aim of addiction treatment. It is unsurprising, therefore, that the notion that drug use causes crime became a common conception. However, the theory is limited in that it assumes that all crimes committed by people who use drugs, are committed as a result of their drug use, when in reality the “causal pathway” is much more complex.

Goldstein's framework builds upon the idea that drug use causes crime, however, attempts to explain this further using three models: the psychopharmacological model, the economically compulsive model, and the systemic model. The psychopharmacological model suggests that chronic drug use can have effects on a person's irritability, fearparanoia, and cause impaired judgement, potentially causing aggression and violence, and subsequently criminal behaviour. This link is likely to be indirect, as it largely depends on the drug taken, with the link between cannabis or opiates and violent behaviour having been discredited; therefore, it seems that this largely relies upon the individual's characteristics and disposition prior to engaging in drug use, as opposed to the drug itself causing the crime. The economically compulsive model suggests that some drug users will turn to acquisitive crime (burglary or robbery), or consensual crime (drug dealing or prostitution), in order to obtain money to buy drugs “in fact, 70% of arrestees said their drug use and crime was connected because of the need to obtain money to buy drugs”. This model seems to implicitly suggest that it is drug policies which cause crime, by keeping drugs illegal they are harder to get hold of, and so it could be suggested that if they were regulated and more easily accessible, less people would need to turn to crime in order to fund their use. The systemic model, is more concerned with the crimes of the dealers rather than the consumers, suggesting that violence is intrinsic to involvement with any illegal substance; arguing that those involved in the illicit drug market are pushed to use force due to the market having no legitimate authority which resolves disputes or sets standards for fair competition. Again, the implicit suggestion here is that it is the drug policies causing crime: if drugs were not illegal these markets would not be controlled by organised crime syndicates, instead they would be legally regulated and controlled, decreasing, or potentially eliminating, the amount of crime attributed to this model.

At the time of Goldstein's writing, the link between drugs and crime was a defining feature of the drug problem in Britain, and the terms 'drug-related' and “drug-driven” crime were coined in response to the belief that those heavily involved in heroin and crack usage were also heavily involved in acquisitive offending. Hough identified a further three links between drugs and crime: the coping model, in which users take drugs to cope with poor economic and social quality of life; the structure model, which accounts for those who are denied legitimate opportunities to achieve societal goals, and so consequently turn to illegitimate ones; and the status model, which identified positive social pay-offs from drug use in societies which reward risk-taking activities. These models seem to begin to stray from the previously clear-cut idea that drug use results in people committing crimes, moving towards the suggestion that people may turn to drug use as a result of external impacts on their life, largely the impact of socio-economic public policies.

The connection between “hard” drugs, such as heroin or crack-cocaine, and socio-economic deprivation became commonplace in the early 1980s, however this link did not address the question of whether heroin users were turning to crime, or whether criminals were turning to heroin. In an attempt to find causation, Parker and Newcombe conducted an experiment with 300 offenders and problematic drug users in Merseyside to assess whether the type and rate of offending was affected by their drug use; finding that in both those who had a criminal record prior to heroin use, and those who did not, there was a substantial increase in acquisitive crime after they began using heroin. Suggesting that the economically-compulsive model is the most significant, indicating that socio-economic and drug-related public policies are implicitly to blame.

Prohibitive drug laws aim to deter people from using illicit substances, and as such anyone who is involved in the production, distribution, sale, or consumption of these automatically becomes a criminal, and so in this regard it is overwhelmingly obvious that drug policies manufacture criminality. Moreover, prohibitive measures often lead to the creation of black markets: most obviously demonstrated by the alcohol prohibition of the 1920s, and the subsequent rise in organised crime syndicates becoming involved in the manufacture and distribution of alcohol; as a direct result of this, the US in the early 1920s saw increases in police corruption, violence arising from black markets, and increased costs and intrusiveness of Federal Law Enforcement. By keeping drugs illegal, scarcity causes the price of these substances to rise, as does the perceived risk taken by those who chose to manufacture and distribute these products; these costs are then passed on to the consumer, meaning that a higher income is required in order to purchase these. If users cannot earn the money legitimately, many will be swayed into committing acquisitive or consensual crimes in order to obtain the necessary money. Moreover, prohibitive laws automatically make people who consume drugs “criminals”, despite many drug users using them purely recreationally, more often than not posing very little risk of harm to anyone other than themselves, and using the substance in a sensible manner. If a casual user has been charged with the possession of a substance, for the vast majority, the impacts of a criminal record will far outweigh any negative impacts which occur as a result of casual drug use. A criminal record will often cause an individual to lose their employment, and furthermore, will hinder someone's ability to gain another form of legitimate employment. It is no secret that being in a dire economic situation can cause many to turn to crime as a means of survival, and often people in these situations can turn to drug use as a means of escapism; meaning the economic impacts can be exacerbated further by the issues surrounding the inflated price of illicit substances to a consumer “becoming somewhat of a cycle which is almost impossible to escape”. Furthermore, once someone has entered the criminal justice system, it becomes increasingly difficult for them to leave and continue living a life purely by legitimate means, meaning that drug policies have implicitly pushed a number of people into a criminal lifestyle.

To conclude, whilst on the face of it, the evidence overwhelmingly seems to support the notion that drug use itself causes crime, when the root causes are further examined the true causation becomes much more difficult to decipher. It seems to me as though drug-related crimes are an inevitable effect of prohibitive drug policies; when you prohibit a substance which so many are reliant upon, without offering any meaningful alternatives (such as addiction therapy or harm reduction measures), it is hardly surprising that a number of those affected by the measures will turn to alternative means to get their 'fix', often this is a turn to crime to fund the drug consumption. Moreover, by implementing these policies, anyone who uses any drug becomes a criminal, it is possible that someone could be sentenced for unproblematic use at a young age, in turn potentially hindering their chances of employment and forcing them into a life of crime in order to survive; without the prohibitive measures currently in place, this channelling into criminality likely would not occur. Whilst there is evidence for the link between drug use and crime, this link cannot necessarily be said to be direct, there is no real way to know from studies whether someone has committed a crime because they were under the influence of drugs, or whether they were simply under the influence whilst committing a crime: further to this, the link between violent crime and drugs is largely dependant on the user's disposition prior to taking the drug, so it can often be said that alcohol would have had the same exacerbative effect on them. Overall, it is difficult to say for sure whether drugs cause crime, or if drug policies cause crime, as there seems to be elements of truth to both theories; however, on balance drug policies seem to have a larger impact on the likelihood of drug users committing crimes. Whilst there is a lot of evidence to suggest drugs cause crime, when considering the root causes of the drug use itself, it becomes evident that drug policy underpins much of it, indicating that it is more likely that drug policies cause crime than drugs themselves causing crime.

Bibliography

• Barnett, R.E. (2009). The Harmful Side Effects of Drug Prohibition. Utah Law Review, 1(11).
• Bennet, T. and Holloway, K. (2004). Drug use and offending: summary results of the first two years of the NEW-ADAM programme. Home Office.
• Bennett, T. (2000). Drugs and crime: the results of the second developmental stage of the NEW-ADAM programme. [online] Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office. Available at: https:lemosandcrane.co.ukresourcesHO - 2nd stage NEW-ADAM.pdf [Accessed 30 Mar. 2022]
• Boyum, D. and Kleiman, M.A.R. (2003). Breaking the drug-crime link. Public Interest, [online] 152(19). Available at: https:www.proquest.comdocview222059391?fromopenview=true