Annex A
DRUGS AND CRIME: WHAT ARE THE LINKS?
Mike Hough, Tim McSweeney and Paul Turnbull,
Criminal Policy Research Unit, South Bank University1.
Details from www.sbu.uk/cpru or mike.hough@sbu.ac.uk
HEADLINES
This review suggests several conclusions about
the links between drugs and crime in Britain:
— Around four million people use illicit
drugs each year.
— Most illicit drug use is relatively
controlled "recreational" use of cannabis and ecstasy.
— People who try illicit drugs are
more likely than others to commit other forms of law-breaking.
— However there is no persuasive evidence
of any causal linkage between drug use and property crime for
the vast majority of this group.
— A very small proportion of users—less
than 5 per cent of the total—have chaotic life styles involving
dependent use of heroin, crack/cocaine and other drugs.
— A small minority of this group—perhaps
around 100,000 people—finance their use through crime.
— The majority of those who steal to
buy drugs were involved in crime before their drug use became
a problem for them.
— This group of criminally involved
problem users commits very large amounts of shoplifting, burglary
and other crime to finance drug purchases.
— If appropriate drug treatment is
given to this group, they reduce their offending levels.
INTRODUCTION
1. That there are links between some forms
of illicit drug use and crime is obvious. The precise nature of
these links is not. Widely differing claims are made about the
extent to which crime is "drug-driven". This paper assembles
research evidence that can shed light on the relationships. We
have focused on key pieces of recent British research, but we
have also discussed relevant American work.
2. This review is restricted to an examination
of the links between drug use and property crime. This is because
debate in the UK currently revolves around the impact of drug
use on crimes such as burglary, shoplifting, robbery and other
theft. We have not examined links with violent crime. This is
not to deny that some specific drugs may facilitate violence—and
others may inhibit it (Anglin & Speckart, 1988; Dobinson &
Ward, 1986; Harrison and Backenheimer, 1998; Jarvis & Parker,
1989). Nor should one ignore the systemic violence associated
with some forms of drug distribution (Goldstein, 1985); however,
we have not examined it here.
TYPES OF
LINK
3. There is a clear association between
illicit drug use and property crime. As will be discussed below,
there is a large degree of overlap between those using illicit
drugs and those who are involved in crime, with a pool of people
who both use drugs and offend. But this link can arise in several
ways (see Coid et al, 2000; Best et al, 2000; Walters, 1998 for
fuller discussions):
— Illicit drug use may lead to other
forms of crime, eg to provide money to buy drugs or as a result
of the dis-inhibiting effects of some drugs.
— Crime may lead to drug use eg providing
the money and the contacts to buy drugs or serving as a palliative
for coping with the stresses of a chaotic, criminal lifestyle.
— There could be a more complex interaction,
whereby crime facilitates drug use, and drug use prompts other
forms of crime.
— There may be an association arising
from a shared common cause—but no causal link at all between
offending and drug use.
4. The fourth possibility deserves as serious
consideration as the other three. Surveys of offenders' health
show that they are much more likely to smoke nicotine than the
general population (eg Singleton et al, 1999). No-one would seriously
argue that smoking causes crime, however, or that crime causes
smoking. Rather, smoking and crime are likely to share some causal
roots without themselves being causally related. The same is likely
to be true of some links between illicit drug use and crime. For
example, economic deprivation, inconsistent parenting, low educational
attainment and limited employment prospects are risk factors not
only for chaotic or dependent drug use but also for heavy involvement
in crime.
5. Each of these explanations will apply
to some people. In some cases problem drug use—dependence
on drugs such as heroin, crack/cocaine or amphetamines, or heavy
binge use of these drugs—does trigger theft as a means of
fund raising. Others would never have become drug-dependent if
crime had not provided them with the means to buy large amounts
of drugs. Some people will both be involved in crime and also
use illicit drugs without there being any causal connection whatsoever
between the two. There are four sorts of relevant study:
— Those examining illicit drug use
and offending in the overall population.
— Those examining drug use in the offending
population.
— Those examining offending amongst
the "problem drug using" population.
— Those examining patterns of drug
use and crime amongst criminally involved problem drug users.
6. This review gathers together the research
evidence under these four headings. For each group of studies
we first set out (in italics) what can be safely deduced from
the research. We then summarise the key research findings that
support these conclusions. At the end of the review we draw together
the threads, and discuss possible implications of the available
evidence.
DRUG USE
AND OFFENDING
IN THE
OVERALL POPULATION
7. Illicit drug use is widespread in the
young adult population. There are around four million regular
illicit drug users in Great Britain. The most commonly used illicit
drugs are cannabis and ecstasy. Large minorities of the teenage
and young adult population also admit to other forms of offending,
though only a very small proportion are persistent or serious
offenders. Those who use illicit drugs are more likely than others
to be involved to some degree in crime, and vice versa. However,
in general there is no significant causal link between use of
either cannabis or ecstasy and property crime. Only a very small
proportion of illicit users report being dependent on drugs.
8. According to the British Crime Survey
(BCS), 34 per cent of the adult (16-59) population have used illicit
drugs at some stage in their life, and 11 per cent report using
illicit drugs in the previous year. This represents around 3.5
million people in England and Wales, or four million people taking
into account Scotland, who use illicit drugs at least once a year.
Use is concentrated amongst the young: 50 per cent of people between
the ages of 16 and 29 will have used a prohibited drug at some
time in their life and 25 per cent in the last year (Ramsay et
al, 2001). Nine out of 10 users say they have used cannabis; one
in 10 ecstasy. Use of heroin and crack is rare. However the BCS
conducted in 2000 reports an increase in the proportion of 16
to 24 year-olds using heroin (from 3 per cent to 8 per cent) and
cocaine (from 3.1 per cent to 4.9 per cent) in the previous year,
when compared to findings from the 1998 BCS, though this is not
statistically significant.
9. The Youth Lifestyle Survey (YLS) makes
broadly similar but slightly higher estimates (Flood-Page et al,
2000). The YLS found that about a fifth of young people admitted
to some form of offending and that self-reported drug use was
the strongest predictor of serious or persistent offending. However,
for the majority of young people, there is no persuasive evidence
that there is any direct causal linkage between offending and
drug use. The association between drug use and offending in the
YLS is best understood in terms of a common cause, which leads
to two—not totally dissimilar—forms of hedonistic
risk-taking.
10. Parker and colleagues' longitudinal
studies describe evolving patterns of drug use amongst young people
in the North West of England (Parker et al, 1998; Measham et al,
2001). Experience of illicit drugs was widespread in their samples
and most funded drug use through legitimate means. Respondents
made a sharp distinction between acceptable and unacceptable drugs—with
heroin and crack in the latter group and use of these drugs was
low. There was only a very small minority who were heavily involved
in crime, dependent drug use and other forms of delinquency.
DRUG USE
IN THE
KNOWN OFFENDING
POPULATION
11. Illicit drug use is very much more common
amongst known offenders in Great Britain than amongst the young
population as a whole. Dependent or problematic drug use is also
more common. Majorities of offenders are regular users of illicit
drugs, and a large minority regard themselves as dependent, describing
their offending as a direct consequence of this dependence.
12. At any one time, there are very roughly
550,000 people in Britain who are persistently involved in crime,
of whom slightly more than 100,000 are high-rate persistent offenders
(figures from Appendix 3, Home Office, 2001, uplifted to take
account of Scotland). The majority of these offenders are known
to the police. They are much more heavily involved in drug use,
and in problematic drug use, than the general population.
13. The largest relevant research study
is the NEW-ADAM survey (Bennett, 1998; 2000; 2001), which drug-tests
and interviews samples of arrestees. The latest sweep of the survey
found that 65 per cent of all arrestees tested (1,435) were positive
for some form of illicit drug, with 24 per cent testing positive
for opiates and 15 per cent for cocaine. The average weekly expenditure
on drugs, for heroin and crack/cocaine users, was £290. The
main sources of illegal income during the last 12 months were
property crime (theft, burglary, robbery, handling stolen goods
and fraud/deception) followed by drug dealing and undeclared earnings
while claiming social security benefits. Heroin and crack/cocaine
users had an average annual illegal income of around £15,000—compared
to an average annual illegal income of £9,000 for all interviewed
arrestees. Bennett concludes that these finding suggest drug use
and in particular the use of heroin and crack/cocaine is associated
with higher levels of both prevalence and incidence of offending.
14. This study has some methodological limitations.
The samples are small, and given that they are drawn from eight
cities per sweep, they are unlikely to be representative of the
country as a whole. Participation is voluntary and urine test
data are not adjusted to take account of the differences in the
half-life of drugs (for example, amphetamines remain testable
in urine for two days; opiates, cocaine and benzodiazepines for
three days; and cannabis up to a month with chronic users). The
results thus need cautious interpretation (see Stimson et al,
1998). Nevertheless they give a good idea of the "order of
magnitude" of the relationships between illicit drug use,
dependence and offending in this population.
15. Consistent results have emerged from
surveys of prison inmates indicating that a significant minority
of the adult convicted population are dependent drug users prior
to imprisonment (Maden et al, 1991; Singleton et al, 1999). Lader
and colleagues in their study of psychiatric morbidity among young
offenders aged between 16 and 20 years in England and Wales found
that six out of 10 had used some drug before entering prison (Lader
et al, 2000). Over half were being held for acquisitive crimes,
although among women drug offences were more common (one in five
being held for these offences). A large proportion reported a
measure of dependency—52 per cent of sentenced male offenders,
58 per cent of female offenders and 57 per cent of remanded male
prisoners. In particular opiate dependence in the year before
coming into prison was reported by 23 per cent of women, 21 per
cent of the male remanded and 15 per cent of the male sentenced
group.
16. Whilst many studies have found extensive
drug use amongst persistent offenders, by no means everyone has
concluded that there is a simple causal relationship, whereby
dependent drug use fuels crime—the so-called "addiction
model" of the links between drugs and crime. A Scottish study
by Hammersley et al (1989) examined opioid use amongst a group
of offenders (in this case, people who had been sent to prison),
contrasting them to a group of non-prisoners. They found that
involvement in property crime predicted opioid use predicted property
crime, and suggested that heavy heroin use could be understood
as a function partly of the spending power of persistent offenders
and partly of the criminal sub-cultures within which heroin use
took place.
17. Several researchers have also drawn
attention to the ability of many people to use "drugs of
dependence" over long periods in controlled ways which do
not amount to addiction. Ditton and Hammersley (1994) have argued
this in relation to cocaine. Pearson (1987) in relation to heroin
(also see Zinberg & Jacobson, 1976; Harding et al,1980).
18. These studies argue against the adoption
of a simple "addiction model" of the links between drugs
and crime, whereby dependence inevitable follows the regular use
of drugs, and where crime inevitably follows the onset of dependence.
However, there is also the need for some realism in taking at
face value the way in which a significant proportion of offenders
say that they are drug-dependent, say that they commit crime to
feed their habit, and are prepared to seek treatment to address
their drug problems.
19. A strong association between drug use
and known offending has also emerged from US research. However
the American criminal justice system has been actively targeting
drug users for many years as part of the "war on drugs".
It is therefore not surprising that such studies find large numbers
of drug users amongst those arrested, dealt with by the courts
or imprisoned (MacCoun & Reuter, 1998).
OFFENDING AMONGST
THE "PROBLEM
DRUG USING"
POPULATION
20. Problem drug users—those dependent
on drugs such as heroin, crack/cocaine or amphetamines, or heavy
binge users of these drugs—are a small minority of the total—under
5 per cent of regular drug users. They are likely to be heavily
involved in acquisitive crime, though large minorities of those
who seek treatment do not report funding their drug use through
acquisitive crime.
21. Extrapolating from the Home Office Addicts
Index in 1996, Edmunds et al (1998; 1999) estimated that problematic
drug users in England and Wales number somewhere between 100,000
and 200,000—less than 5 per cent of the four million or
so of those who use illicit drugs each year. The Scottish population
would add around 10 per cent to this figure. In any one year there
may be around 50,000 in contact with treatment services, and several
studies have considered the criminal involvement of those in treatment.
22. The National Treatment Outcome Research
Study (NTORS) was a longitudinal study of 1,100 opiate dependent
drug users who had sought treatment. It found high levels of criminal
behaviour among the sample (Gossop et al, 1998). 61 per cent of
the sample reported committing crimes other than drug possession
in the three months before they started treatment; in aggregate
they admitted to 71,000 crimes in this period. The most commonly
reported offence was shoplifting.
23. A smaller study of 221 methadone reduction
and maintenance clients found over four-fifths had been arrested
from some criminal offence in the past (Coid et al., 2000). However,
offending prior to treatment had not always been undertaken solely
to fund drug taking. Despite this, two-thirds believed there was
a strong link between their current offending and their drug habit
and half claimed that their current offending served solely to
fund their drug habit. Best et al (2001) examined 100 people entering
drug treatment in London. Consistent with NTORS and Coid et al,
they found slightly more than half of the sample reported funding
drug use through acquisitive crime.
24. There is an extensive research literature
in US which similarly suggest that may problematic users are involved
in criminal activity (Nurco et al, 1995; Anglin & Perrochet,
1998; Lurigio, 2000; NIJ, 2000).
PATTERNS OF
DRUG USE
AND OFFENDING
AMONGST CRIMINALLY
INVOLVED PROBLEM
DRUG USERS
25. Problem users who have recently come
to police attention are usually at the more chaotic end of the
spectrum of problem drug users. They tend to be poly-drug users,
with heroin and crack prominent in their drug repertoires. They
are likely to have a long criminal career, which often pre-dates
their career as problem drug user. They spend a great deal of
money on drugs (often several hundred pounds a week). They are
likely to have been arrested for shoplifting, burglary of other
acquisitive offences, although drug dealing is also a frequent
fund-raising strategy. Treatment has been shown to yield large
falls in drug use, and consequent reductions in offending.
26. There is now quite a significant body
of research examining patterns of crime and drug use amongst problem
users who are identified as such as they pass through the criminal
process. Much of this work has involved evaluations of treatment
or referral programmes targeting this group. The studies show
that these problem drug users commit large amounts of acquisitive
crime. For example, drug-using offenders on probation in London
were found to be spending an average of £362 per week on
drugs prior to arrest primarily raised by committing acquisitive
crime, notably shoplifting. In the month before arrest, over half
(51 per cent) of these probationers were using both heroin and
crack (Hearnden & Harocopos, 2000). The evaluation of a range
of "arrest referral schemes" designed to refer offenders
to treatment also found similar levels of expenditure on drugs
funded through property crimes such as burglary. Again most reported
poly-drug use with 97 per cent using either opiates or stimulants
or both (Edmunds et al, 1999). Turnbull and colleagues described
the drug use and offending behaviour of those offenders given
Drug Treatment and Testing Orders. Three-fifths of those given
the 210 pilot orders had never received any form of help or treatment
for their drug use (Turnbull et al, 2000). Of 132 drug-using offenders
interviewed most (120 or 91 per cent) had been using opiates on
a daily basis before arrest. They reported committing several
types of property crime on a daily basis in order to fund an average
expenditure of £400 per week on drugs. Almost half received
their order following a conviction for shoplifting.
27. An important finding to emerge from
both British and North American studies is that the criminal careers
of this group usually pre-dated the onset of problematic or dependent
drug use. Edmunds et al (1999), for example, examining a sample
drawn from arrest referral clients and probationers found that
the average age at which illicit drugs were first used was 15
years. The average at first conviction (for any offence) was 17
years. The average age at which respondents recognised their drug
use as problematic was 23 years—six year later.
28. A review of US research by Deitch et
al (2000) concluded that roughly two-thirds of drug-using offenders
report involvement in crime before the onset of drug use. This
simple fact has led some to argue that drug use can not be regarded
as a cause; obviously it cannot be the sole cause, but as Harrison
and Backenheimer (1998) argue, "Addiction to illicit drugs
appears to be an amplifier or catalyst which aggravates deviant
tendencies". Whilst dependent drug use may not have triggered
the criminal careers of this group, it provides a mechanism by
which they are locked into offending, and thus fail to mature
out of crime in the way that characterises the majority of young
offenders.
29. Both British and US studies point to
a preferred hierarchy of fund-raising strategies, with drug dealing
and shoplifting at or near the top of the list while burglary
and robbery offences also feature prominently.
30. There are many studies which suggest
that treating the drug problems of this criminally involved population
has benefit. Both British and US research suggests that drug treatment
can work to reduce offending as well as drug use (Gossop et al,
1998;) Coid et al, 2000; Edmunds et al, 1998, 1999; Hearnden &
Harocopos, 1999; Turnbull et al, 2000; also see Belenko, 1998
and Lurigio, 2000, for American reviews). Whilst much of the research
can be criticised on methodological grounds, (most have relied
on urine test data for the period covering the treatment programme,
few collected reliable outcome measures relating to re-offending,
and fewer still have run for periods of time stretching beyond
engagement with the programme, comparing treatment groups with
comparison samples) cumulatively it offers quite good evidence
that appropriate drug services can help reduce drug use and related
crime. The studies also have obvious implications about the links
between dependent drug use and persistent offending; if reduced
dependence results in reduced offending, this provides strong
grounds for the existence of a causal link.
DISCUSSION: LINKS
BETWEEN DRUG
AND CRIME
31. This review suggests several conclusions
about the links between drugs and crime in Britain:
— Around four million people use illicit
drugs each year.
— Most illicit drug use is relatively
controlled "recreational" use of cannabis and ecstasy.
— People who try illicit drugs are
more likely than others to commit other forms of law-breaking.
— However there is no persuasive evidence
of any causal linkage between drug use and property crime for
the vast majority of this group.
— A very small proportion of users—less
than 5 per cent of the total—have chaotic life styles involving
dependent use of heroin, crack/cocaine and other drugs.
— A small minority of this group—perhaps
around 100,000 people—finance their use through crime.
— The majority of those who steal to
buy drugs were involved in crime before their drug use became
a problem for them.
— This group of criminally involved
problem users commits very large amounts of shoplifting, burglary
and other crime to finance drug purchases.
— If appropriate drug treatment is
given to this group, they reduce their offending levels.
32. There are different explanations for
the association between illicit drug use and crime for different
groups of drug user. In considering the links it is essential
to be specific about these different groups.
33. The literature suggest that "lifestyle"
and "sub-cultural" factors are important in explaining
why those who try illicit drugs are also more likely than others
to get involved in other forms of law-breaking. The search for
novelty and excitement, and enjoyment of the rewards of risk-taking
are defining aspects of youth culture. It is hardly a surprise
that large minorities of the population engage in the—relatively
controlled—risks of both recreational drug use and minor
crime at some stage of their adolescence and young adulthood.
34. For those whose offending—and
drug use—is more persistent and less controlled, other explanatory
factors also need to be called into play. In the first place,
chaotic drug users and persistent offenders—in contrast
to controlled drug users and occasional petty offenders—have
limited social and economic resources, and limited exposure to
legitimate "life opportunities" (see eg Harrison 1992;
MacGregor, 2000). The majority are from deprived backgrounds,
with inconsistent parenting, poor access to housing and health
care, low educational attainment and limited employment prospects.
Controlled drug use has no obvious association with social exclusion;
how could it, given the scale of participation? Chaotic or dependent
use, by contrast, shares that constellation of risk factors that
also predict heavy involvement in crime—and exposure to
many forms of social exclusion.
35. If these risk factor predispose people
both to uncontrolled drug use and to involvement in persistent
offending, Walters (1998) and De Li Periu and MacKenzie (2000)
have discussed how reciprocal causal relationships can begin to
emerge, whereby criminal involvement both facilitates and maintains
drug use, and drug use maintains involvement in crime. Whilst
some researchers, such as Hammersley and colleagues (1989), have
argued for sub-cultural explanations of the close linkage, the
accounts of the offenders themselves are more consistent with
a pathological perspective, where dependence provides the motive
for acquisitive offending.
36. A "war on drugs" is one of
the most persistent of political metaphors. In mobilising their
troops, drug warriors point to drug-related crime as one of the
worse consequences of drug use. This review presents research
evidence which calls into question the simple "addiction
model" of the relationship between drugs and crime whereby
illicit drug use lead inexorably to dependence and thence to crime.
The relationships are actually more complex. Most drug users are—and
remain—in control of their use; many such users are also
involved in crime, but drugs are not to blame for this. There
is a small minority of drug users who are dependent in their use
and chaotic in their lifestyles; there is a strong probability
that these will finance their drug use through property crime.
37. It makes sense to think of chaotic or
dependent drug use and persistent offending sharing causal roots;
but it is also important to understand how, once established,
the two behaviours can be mutually sustaining. Drug dependence
tends to amplify the offending rates of people whose circumstances
may predispose them to becoming persistent offenders. There are
important policy implications here. It makes excellent sense to
provide treatment services for drug-dependent offenders; if successful,
it should substantially reduce levels of crime. However, to maintain
the lifestyle changes, which treatment may enable, it will also
be necessary to address the factors, which drew this group into
persistent offending in the first place.
September 2001
REFERENCES
Anglin, M.D., and Perrochet, B. (1998) Drug
Use and Crime: a historical review of research conducted by the
UCLA Drug Abuse Research Center. Substance Use and Misuse, 33(9),
pp. 1871-1914.
Anglin, M.D. and Speckart, G. (1988) Narcotics
and crime: a multi-sample, multi-method analysis. Criminology,
26(2), p. 197-233.
Belenko, S. (1998) Research on drug courts:
a critical review. New York: The National Centre on Addiction
and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.
Bennett, T. (1998) Drugs and Crime: the results
of research on drug testing and interviewing arrestees. HORS 183.
London: Home Office.
Bennett, T. (2000) Drugs and Crime: the results
of the second development stage of the NEW-ADAM programme. HORS
205. London: Home Office.
Bennett, T., Holloway, K. and Williams, T. (2001)
Drug use and offending: summary results of the first year of the
NEW-ADAM research programme. Home Office Research Findings No.
148. London: Home Office.
Best, D., Sidwell, C., Gossop, M., Harris, J.
and Strang, J. (2001) Crime and Expenditure Among Polydrug Misusers
Seeking Treatment. British Journal of Criminology, 41, pp. 119-126.
Coid, J., Carvell, A., Kittler, Z., Healy, A.
and Henderson, J. (2000) Opiates, Criminal Behaviour, and Methadone
Treatment. London: Home Office.
Deitch, D., Koutsenok, I. And Ruiz, A. (2000).
The relationship between crime and drugs: what we have learned
in recent decades. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 32(4), pp. 391-397.
De Li Priu, H. and Mackenzie, D. (2000) Drug
involvement, lifestyles and criminal activities among probationers.
Journal of Drug Issues 30(3), pp. 593-620.
Ditton, J. and Hammersley, R.H. (1994) The Typical
Cocaine User. Druglink, 9, 11-12.
Dobinson, I. And Ward, P. (1986) Heroin and
property crime: an Australian perspective Journal of Drug Issues,
16(2), p. 249-262.
Edmunds, M., May, T., Hough, M, and Hearnden,
I. (1998) Arrest Referral: Emerging Lessons from Research. Home
Office: Drugs Prevention Initiative Paper no. 23.
Edmunds, M., Hough, M., Turnbull, P.J., and
May, T. (1999) Doing Justice to Treatment referring offenders
to drug services. DPAS Paper 2. London: Home Office.
Flood-Page, C., Campbell, S., Harrington, V.,
and Miller, J. (2000) Youth Crime: findings from the 1998-99 Youth
Lifestyles Survey. HORS 209. London: Home Office.
Goldstein, P. (1985) The drugs/violence nexus:
A tripartite conceptual framework. Journal of Drug Issues, 15(4),
pp. 493-506.
Gossop, M., Marsden, J. and Steward, D. (1998)
NTORS at One Year. The National Treatment Outcome Research Study.
Changes in Substance Use, Health and Criminal Behaviour at One
Year after Intake. London: Department of Health.
Hammersley, R.H., Forsyth, A., Morrison, V.
and Davies, J.B. (1989) The relationship between crime and opioid
use. British Journal of Addiction, 84(9), pp. 1029-1043.
Harding, W.M., Zinberg, N.E., Stelmack, S.M.
and Barry, M. (180) Formerly-addicted-now-controlled opiate users.
International Journal of the Addictions, 15, pp. 47-60.
Harrison, L.D. (1992) The drug-crime nexus in
the USA. Contemporary Drug Problems, 19(2), pp. 181-202.
Harrison L.D. and Backenheimer, M (1998) Research
Careers in unravelling the drug crime nexus in the U.S. Substance
Use and Misuse, 33(9), pp. 1763-2003.
Hearnden, I. And Harocopos, A. (2000) Problem
Drug Use and Probation in London. Home Office Research Finding
No. 112. London: Home Office.
Jarvis, G. and Parker H. (1989) Young Heroin
users and crime: How do the "new users" finance their
habits? British Journal of Criminology, 29(2), pp. 175-185.
Lader, D., Singleton, N. and Meltzer, H. (2000)
Psychiatric Morbidity among Young Offenders in England and Wales.
London: ONS.
Lurigio, A. (2000). Drug treatment effectiveness
and availability. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 27(4), pp. 495-528.
MacCoun, R.J. and Reuter, P. (1998) Drug control.
In M. Tonry (ed.), The handbook of crime and punishment. New York:
Oxford University Press.
MacGregor, S. (2000) The Drugs-Crime Nexus.
Drugs: education, prevention and policy, 7(4), pp. 311-316.
Maden, A., Swinton, M. and Gunn, J. (1991) Drug
Dependence in Prisons. British Medical Journal, 302 (6781), p.
880.
Making Punishments Work. Report of a review
of the sentencing framework for England and Wales (2001). London:
Home Office Communication Directorate.
Measham, F., Aldridge, J., Parker, H. (2001)
Dancing on Drugs. Risk, health and Hedonism in the British Club
Scene. London: Free Association Books.
National Institute of Justice (2000) 1999 Annual
Report on Drug Use Among Adult and Juvenile Arrestees. Arrestee
Drug Abuse Monitoring Program (ADAM). Washington DC: National
Institute of Justice, NCJ 181426.
Nurco, D.N., Kinlock, T.W., & Hanlon, T.E.
(1995) "The Drugs-Crime Connection" in (ed.) Inciardi,
J., and McElrath, K. "The American Drug Scene: an anthology".
Los Angeles: Roxbury.
Parker, H. and Newcombe, R. (1987) Heroin Use
and Acquisitive Crime in an English Community. British Journal
of Sociology, 38(3), pp. 331-350.
Parker, H., Aldridge, J. and Measham, F. (1998)
Illegal Leisure: The Normalisation of Adolescent Recreational
Drug Use. London: Routledge.
Pearson, G. (1987) The New Heroin Users. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Ramsey, M. and Partridge, S. (1999) Drug Misuse
Declared in 1998: results from the British Crime Survey. HORS
197. London: Home Office.
Ramsey, M., Baker, P., Goulden, C., Sharp, C.
and Sondhi, A. (2001) Drug Misuse Declared in 2000: results from
the British Crime Survey. HORS 224. London: Home Office.
Singleton, N., Farrel, M. and Meltzer, H. (1999)
Substance Misuse Among Prisoners in England and Wales. London:
ONS.
Stimson, GV., Hickman, M. and Turnbull, P.J.
(1998) Statistics on misuse of drugs have been misused. British
Medical Journal. Vol. 317, p. 1388.
Turnbull, P.J., McSweeney, T., Hough, M., Webster,
R. and Edmunds, M. (2000) Drug Treatment and Testing Orders: Final
evaluation report. HORS 212. London: Home Office.
Walters, G. (1998) Changing Lives of Drugs and
Crime. Chichester: Wiley and Sons.
Zinberg, N.E. and Jacobson, R.C. (1976) The
Natural History of "Chipping". American Journal of Psychiatry,
133, pp. 37-40.
|
