How drugs cause Violence and Crime

Drugs have for the longest time been one of the main reasons why crime and violent acts occur often. In court, it is a common defense strategy for someone to attribute certain acts to drugs or intoxication. Even in the signing of contracts, one factor that validates the legitimacy of the pact is the sobriety of the contracting parties. Drugs have many effects on the normal functioning of a person’s body and it is on the basis of these effects that violence and crime become contextually relevant (Piercea et al., 2019) . Rudimentarily, drugs’ imposition of violence or crime on a person is a peripheral effect that occurs because the conventional functionality of the body has been altered (Brinkman & Mok-Lamme, 2019) . Besides this, drug addicts often engage in income-generating crimes to sustain their ‘lifestyles.’ Bennett et al., (2008) state ‘it was difficult to avoid concluding that addicts engage in substantial amounts of income-generating crimes.’

The relation between drugs and violence or crime is not inherently concise. This means that taking drugs does not necessarily cause violent behavior and crime. In contrast, the drug barbiturate is known to often inhibit violent behavior among its users (Bennett, 2008). Marijuana’s impact on crime and violence is somewhat ‘neutral.’ For instance, Braakmann and Jones, (2014) explain that it increases crime and violence while Brinkman and Mok-Lamme, (2019) show that it can cause a decline. The actuality of how drugs cause violence and crime can be defined in three modular frames (theories). There is a direct causal connection and the indirect causal connection. The third model is based on the analysis that drugs are an ordinary causal factor and that generally falls under other socio-economic variables like environment, income disparity, and etcetera (Bennett, 2008). According to the National Institute of Justice Drug Use Forecasting, 50% to 85% of all arrestees test positive for drug use (Tonry, 1990).

Considering drugs as a direct causal element of crime and violence, some drugs become more contextually relevant than others. Heroin, cocaine, opiates, and amphetamines are the common drugs that have a relatively concise attribution to violence and crime (Teece & Makkai, 2000). A criminal record of one Carlos Ortiz shows repeated violence that mainly occurred to his high dependency on alcohol, cocaine, PCP, and THC (Crimes, drugs on witness' record, 2013). The effect that these drugs have on the psychophysical behavior of a person is the linkage to crime and violence. Hayhurst et al., (2017) explain that drugs often affect the brain by either suppressing or enhancing its functions. Also, the two effects can happen simultaneously where a certain section or functionality of the brain is enhanced while another one is suppressed (Chalub & Telles, 2006). Any alteration of the brain’s functionality can have various effects; among which can be crime and violence (Pierce et al., 2017).

Deterred judgment (decision-making), hallucinations, neuro-hyperactivity, and overall stimulation are the common effects of abusing drugs. Depending on the type of drug in context, these effects vary in intensity, frequency, and number (Nordstrom & Dackis, 2011). Drugs with the highest and most intense effect on the brain have a relatively higher attribution to crime and violence. An example is opiates (opioids). Some of the effects of this drug include mental flog (impaired judgment) and hyperactivity (Stavseth et al., 2017). These effects are preliminary catalysts of violent behavior and crime. While Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is generally a medical condition, it can be imposed temporarily by drugs like opioids and cocaine (Piercea et al., 2019) . ADHD makes a person vulnerable in decision-making hence exposes them to the possible violence and crime.

Psychopharmacological effects of drugs can be so adverse on people that their behavior is conversely redefined once they kick in (Stavseth et al., 2017) . This means that a person can be inherently calm, composed, and cool. However, after ingesting certain drugs, they become hyperactive, rowdy, loud, and aggressive. There is a degree of behavioral alteration that drugs impose on their consumers (Chalub & Telles, 2006). This is the reason why some people become ‘confident’ after getting high. The behavioral modification effect of drugs is a known phenomenon by drug users. Therefore, some users deliberately use drugs to alter their behavior so that it inclines to aggressiveness and confidence then consequently violence and crime. This is the reason those dependent on heroin, and other opiates, are disproportionately involved in criminal activity (Bennett et al., 2008).

Drugs have an indirect causal effect on violence and crime. This is the second modular frame that explains the connection between the three phenomena. The narcotics business is associated with a lot of violence. In the 1980s, some of the biggest mortality rates in America were a result of the narcotics business (Taylor & Jonathan, 2019). Most of the violence associated with the narcotics business emerges from disputes on ‘business spaces,’ loyalty issues, and other intricate reasons. One of the other reasons why violence and crime punctuate the narcotics business is the affiliation of cartels and gangs (Attwood, 2016). The drug business operates and thrives in a hierarchical system that is meticulously organized in devolved units of distribution ( Parker & Auerhahn, 2019) . If a member of certain gang or cartel gets into a disagreement, the affiliate group is drawn to the dispute.

Gang and cartel disputes are mostly solved through violence. Drug lords, cartels, and affiliate gangs use whichever means necessary to protect their drug empires. Pablo Escobar is inarguably the greatest drug barons in human history. In his lifetime, he was linked to the death of thousands; all of which were perpetrated to protect his narcotics empire (Attwood, 2016). In the early 1990s, Colombia had been named the world’s ‘death capital’ with over 52,000 narcotic-related perpetrated in 1991 and 1992 (Attwood, 2016). Note that not all narcotics-related violence targets other narcotic dealers. Some of the violence is orchestrated against the public. At times, the public just happens to be collateral. Either way, the narcotic business is an avenue that propagates a lot of violence and crime. In the US, many of the neighborhoods with the most violent and crime have a high inclination to narcotic trade and consumption (Piroozfara et al., 2019).

Crack cocaine addiction was a national menace in the US during the 1980s. The accessibility of this ‘candy’ and its addition levels made its distribution virtually impossible to control (Taylor & Jonathan, 2019). However, these drugs mostly affected poor black neighborhoods of Baltimore, Philadelphia, and etcetera. Many of the people who became addicted to these drugs were unemployed or did not have a sustainable source of income (Tonry, 1990) . For a poor unemployed addict looking forward to the next high, the only way to get a dollar is through unconventional means. While some women engaged in prostitution, men engaged in crime (Taylor & Jonathan, 2019). As a result, there was a certain category of criminals whose sole reason for committing a crime was to get money for the next high. This is the reason why Bennett et al., (2008) explain that some addicts are inescapably pushed into crime to sustain their additions. Even today, many poor neighborhoods of the US have a high access to drugs which propagates violence and crime within those areas (Drugs and Crime, 2015).

Drug addicts from poor families tend to become a financial burden on their people. This is even worse if the addicts are caretakers, breadwinners or the primary heads of their families (Piroozfara et al., 2019) . In the US, some children are taken to foster care because their parents are drug addicts and cannot provide for them ( Stavseth et al., 2017) . Despite the absence of quality care, such children are subjected to violence and abuse. However, there are worse cases where childcare services may not be involved. In such instances, the children are pushed by circumstances to drop out of school and find jobs. Their low education and poverty can only accord them jobs in either crime or narcotics (Teece & Makkai, 2000) . Therefore, the child engages in crime or selling drugs to take care of themselves and maybe their addict parents. Also, children with addict parents tend to be subjected to violence and abuse (American Addiction Centers, 2019).

According to the American Addiction Centers, 20% of domestic violence cases occur due to drug dependency (American Addiction Centers, 2019). Also, more than 85% of these domestic violence victims are women and children. Many children who end up dropping out of school to take care of their addict parents are susceptible to drug dependency and violence as well. The reason is that they live within the same socio-economic environment that their parents became addicts (Tonry, 1990). With no education and stable home, such children become inherently susceptible to a life of drugs and violence. Parents who engage in drug abuse, crime, and violence may probably end up in jail. This consequently exposes their children to a similar life of drugs, crime, and violence (Bukten et al., 2011). Therefore, the drugs, violence, and crime menace tends to form a loop where those who are directly affected slowly ‘endorse’ or indulge others into a similar lifestyle.

Lastly, the connection between drugs, violence, and crime can be viewed as a conventional societal factor that is in coherence with the fundamental lining of society ( Braakmann & Jones, 2014) . Based on this model or theory, drugs are an ordinary causal factor of crime like all others (like poverty). The theory ‘predicts an association between drug use and crime, but argues that it is not causal. Instead, the relationship is viewed as spurious and the result of a co-existence of problematic behaviors’ (Bennett et al., 2008). While this theory tends to integrate the first two factors, the difference that it does not designate ‘drugs’ as a ‘special’ reason why crime and violence occur. Rather, it just generally falls under other socio-economic variables like environment, income disparity, and etcetera.

To substantiate the third theory, Parker and Auerhahn, (1998) propose that ‘youth violence is a functional, purposive behavior that serves definable goals within.’ This means that the youth stage of people’s lifecycle is fundamentally drawn to violent tendencies ( Nordstrom & Dackis, 2011) . Therefore, if a young person abuses a drug and then engages in violence, the drug cannot be ‘held accountable’ for such behavior. This theory also explains the environment that people grow in and how it dissociates the attribution of drugs to violence or crime (Tonry, 1990) . For instance, there are neighborhoods whose social fabric has been tailored with drugs, violence, and crime over the years (Teece & Makkai, 2000) . If someone from such a society grows up to abuse drugs, and be violent or engage in crime, a point of centrality cannot be drawn to merge the three elements. The reason why this theory is considered when explaining how drugs cause violence or crime is that it embeds the three elements (drugs, violence, and crime) despite dissociating their attribution to each other.

The three theories show that there indeed drugs can lead to crime and violence. Many people who associate drugs with crime and violence may tend to think that someone becomes violent just because of the sheer influence of a drug they have taken. However, this may not always be the case. As demonstrated, drugs can impose violence and crime indirectly. Also, not all people that take drugs become violent and not all drugs taken by people trigger them to become violent. Therefore, drugs’ impact on violence and crime is not inherently dependent in the sheer consumption of a certain drug. Rather, it is an intricate integration of various socio-economic and psychological factors that merge with the psychopharmacological effects of drugs to possibly result in violence and crime. 

References

American Addiction Centers (2019). Understanding the Connection Between Drug Addiction, Alcoholism, and Violence . Retrieved from https://americanaddictioncenters.org/rehab-guide/addiction-and-violence 

Attwood, S. (2016). Pablo Escobar : Beyond Narcos. Gadfly Press.

Bennett, T., Holloway, K. & Farrington, D. (2008). The statistical association between drug misuse and crime : A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior: Volume 13, Issue 2, 107–118.

Braakmann, N. & Jones, S. (2014). Cannabis depenalisation, drug consumption and crime - Evidence from the 2004 cannabis declassification in the UK . Social Science & Medicine: Volume 115, August 2014, Pages 29-37.

Brinkman, J. & Mok-Lamme, D. (2019). Not in my backyard? Not so fast . The effect of marijuana legalization on neighborhood crime. Regional Science and Urban Economics Volume 78, September 2019, 103460.

Bukten, A., Skurtveit, S., Per Stangeland, Gossop, M., Willersrud, A. B., Waal, H., Havnes, I., Clausen, T. (2011). Criminal convictions among dependent heroin users during a 3-year period prior to opioid maintenance treatment : A longitudinal national cohort study. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, Volume 41, Issue 4, Pages 407–414.

Chalub, M. & Telles, L. E. D. (2006). Alcohol, drugs, and crime . Rev Bras Psiquiatr. 2006; 28 (Supl II):S69-73.

Crimes, drugs on witness' record (2013). Carlos Ortiz . USA Today, 11 July 2013, p. 07C.

Drugs and Crime (2015). New York Times (1923-Current File), p. A16.

Hayhurst, K. P., Pierce, M., Hickman, M., Seddon, T., Dunn, G., Keane, J. & Millar, T. (2016). Pathways through opiate use and offending : A systematic review. International Journal of Drug Policy. Volume 39, January 2017, Pages 1-13.

Nordstrom, B. R. & Dackis, C. A. (2011). Drugs and crime . Journal of Psychiatry & Law 39/Winter.

Parker, R. N. & Auerhahn, K. (2019). Alcohol, Drugs, and Violence . Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 24 (1998), pp. 291-311 Published by: Annual Reviews.

Piercea, M., Hayhursta, K., Bird, S. M., Hickmanc, M., Seddond, T., Dunne, G., Millara, T. (2019). Insights into the link between drug use and criminality : Lifetime offending of criminally-active opiate users. Drug and Alcohol Dependence: Volume 179, 1 October 2017, Pages 309-316.

Piroozfara, P., Farrb, E. R. P., Aboagye-Nimod, E., Osei-Berchiea, J. (2019). Crime prevention in urban spaces through environmental design : A critical UK perspective. Cities:

Volume 95, December 2019, 102411.

Stavseth, M. R., & Røislien, J., Bukten, A. & Clausen, T. (2017). Factors associated with ongoing criminal engagement while in opioid maintenance treatment . Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment: Volume 77, Pages 52–56.

Taylor, N. S. & Jonathan, D. S. (2018). Racial Bias in the US Opioid Epidemic : A Review of the History of Systemic Bias and Implications for Care. Cureus, Vol. 10, Issue 12, e3733.

doi:  10.7759/cureus.3733 .

Teece, M. & Makkai, T. (2000). Print Media Reporting on Drugs and Crime, 1995–1998 . Australian Institute of Criminology.

Tonry, M. (1990). Research on Drugs and Crime . Crime and Justice, Vol. 13, Drugs and Crime (1990), pp. 1-8.