Drugs, Crime and Youth - Research Paper Example

Drugs, Crime and Youth The teenage years are when people transition from innocent children to socially savvy adults. During this period, most have feelings of insecurity as they are developing at a rapid pace both psychologically and physically. The need to belong to a group is strong during this time and, combined with the fact that they do not yet possess the decision-making wisdom of adults, often leads to poor choices including opting to use illegal drugs and alcohol. Teenagers are naturally curious, one of the reasons given for experimenting with drugs. They also tend to become bored easily and experience frequent emotional highs and lows, all potential factors in teenage drug use. Experimenting with drugs causes many adverse effects especially in the case of developing youths. Of all drugs, alcohol is most widely used by both adults and youths but illegal drugs are consumed by a sizeable number of persons as well who emanate from all social circumstances. The frequency of alcohol and drug use amongst young persons for social, recreational and experimental reasons is extensive and continues to escalate. Heightened propensities toward violent behaviors have also been linked to drug use but unlike the other negative outcomes, this may be a falsity. The majority of people who use illegal drugs, both adult and youth, do not become habitual, daily users nor are they involved in criminal behaviors that are related with the use of drugs. Following their assessment of various studies, Chaiken and Chaiken (1989: 216) concluded that “among youths who engage in both predatory crime and substance use, the onset of crime most often comes first.” This assessment in effect eliminates the likelihood that drug use leads teenagers to criminal activity (Dembo et al, 1991). Alcohol use by young teenagers was, however, an indicator of violent behavior later in life. Cocaine and marijuana use were unrelated to violent activities. This evaluation did not present confirmation that an underlying link existed between cocaine or marijuana use and violence or vice-versa. It is a fallacy to suggest that teenagers commit crimes at a higher rate simply to support a cocaine or cannabis habit. Studies that have shown a relationship between drug use and an increase of criminal activity have usually focused on adults addicted to heroin. “Other than in periods of physical addiction, for most people, changes over time in individuals’ use or non-use of drugs are not systematically related to changes in criminal activity” (Chaiken & Chaiken, 1989: 211-212). A predominance of available research indeed indicates a correlation between drug use and crime; however, the majority of this group was involved in criminal activity before being involved with drugs. In addition, research has shown for most heavy drug users, committing crimes was independent of and had little connection with their drug habit. Casual users almost never commit crimes due in whole or in part with their use of illegal drugs. Of course, these deductions are factual only because it includes marijuana use with all other types of drugs. When discussing the link between illegal drugs and crime, many complexities exist; therefore, drugs must be considered individually so as to give an accurate assessment of the situation. Other than the fact that the use, possession or sale of cannabis itself constitutes a crime, no studies indicate that the casual or regular use of cannabis leads to criminal activity of any type. It is typically accepted and was again reproved by researchers that people who used opiates were involved in crimes to a much higher degree than are users of cannabis. However, this study also discovered that the level of criminality continued practically unabated even after drugs were removed from the situation. Evidently, lifestyle choices were a much greater factor in criminality rates than were the need for heroin or opium (Chaiken & Chaiken, 1989). The study also investigated drug use patterns of youth users and discovered that, not surprisingly, of those that used drugs, the most prone to commit criminal acts were the ones who were using more than one type of hard drug. What was somewhat surprising, the study found that they were not motivated to steal in order to purchase more drugs. The level of criminal involvement for a particular individual and type of crimes perpetrated was generally found to be a separate causational issue, independent from that person’s use of drugs. “People who use heroin and other opiates do not do so simply because they are attracted to the chemical properties or because of the need to satisfy uncontrollable physical cravings” (Currie, 1993). The comprehensive studies that examine crime in relation to drug use clearly indicate that there is an assortment of complex variables involved in determining connections. The statement, ‘drug use causes crime’ as some suggest is exceedingly inadequate and wholly inaccurate. A greater connection can be drawn from crime to cultural and socio-economic conditions. While it is widely publicized and a matter of fact that the majority of criminals use drugs, the number of persons incarcerated for drug-related violations must be subtracted from the equation to more accurately determine the number that may have committed a crime to obtain drugs. Counting those that are made criminals because of drug use alone skews the statistics. It is very simple and politically advantageous to say that, for example, 75 per cent of criminals test positive for illegal drugs therefore, drug use must be connected to the crime. Of those 75 per cent, about a quarter is for drug possession. This means about half, not 75 per cent, could possibly connect their crime to drug use in some way. However, as the evidence has shown, far less than that are likely to be in prison because they were stealing to support a drug habit. “Apart from driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, there is not much evidence of the kind of direct causal link between drugs and crime that would obtain even if the drugs were not criminal” (Currie, 1993). A direct link can positively be established between alcohol abuse and crimes of a violent nature and to a much greater extent than all other types of drug use combined. It has been suggested that the multiple and complex issues surrounding the association between crime and drugs could be better understood so that laws and policies could be better constructed thus serving society’s best interest. Neither crime nor drugs are going to magically disappear from the earth because both are deeply sewn into the fabric of society. Therefore, both issues, together and separately could be dealt with in a more reasonable manner than at present. There are those who suggest that the crime rate would be reduced if drug use was decriminalized. Of course it would, by at least 25 per cent because that percentage is in prison for drug-related crimes which would no longer be valid. Seriously though, because of the over-burdened prison system, violent criminals are serving shorter sentences to make room for new arrivals including non-violent drug offenders. Violent criminals who are released are a much greater threat to the general safety of society that is the non-violent drug user. If violent offenders served their entire given time in prison, crime most certainly would be reduced. Currently, many of the developed nations of the world are debating the merits regarding the regulation and criminalization of drugs. The most frequent debate is about what is generally deemed the least harmful of illegal drugs, cannabis. People are progressively coming to the opinion that though the government has the right to regulate any consumable including cannabis, “it has no right to seek to prevent its use, either because it is not harmful in any significant way, or because any harm it does cause is not of a kind that is properly the business of the criminal law” (Currie, 1993). Most European nations separate cannabis from the harder drugs in its laws and discussions but the United States generally does not. The U.S. continues to be heavily engaged in its ‘war on drugs’, which began in the 1970’s and was accelerated by President Reagan in the 1980’s. Tony Blair used tough language in explaining his intention to crackdown on drug use during the previous campaign. However, in both the U.S. and Britain, illegal drug use has steadily increased. The proper function of the criminal justice system regarding drug use is twofold. First, to decrease the incidence of harm thus promoting safer conditions for the community at large and second, to help re-integrate the chronic drug user back into being a productive member of society. This set of guidelines is certainly suitable objectives for laws regarding drug use. The debate generally centers on which type or degree of harm should be the concern of criminal laws. Does drug use constitute a harmful threat or does the criminalization of drug use constitute a greater threat? Many countries are concluding that criminal law should not apply to the personal use of cannabis. Whatever slight harm it may or may not cause does not justify being categorized as a criminal offence (Currie, 1993). Politicians understand that ‘tough talk’ on drugs gains votes by tapping into the parents’ natural instincts to protect their children. A politician’s promise to eradicate drugs is a popular sentiment amongst parents who wish to shield their kids from drugs. It is interesting that the debate on drug policies in most countries is simply that, drug policies, without distinction for the different types but youths certainly realize that there is a difference. This is evidenced by the fact that the great majority of youths who use illegal drugs choose the least harmful. The debate combines heroin with cannabis when attempting to find a solution to the problem but different drugs include widely different issues which require widely different solutions. Decriminalization supporters theorize that if cannabis, cocaine, heroin, and other drugs were legalized, several positive things would probably follow. Drug prices would fall enabling users to obtain their drugs at low, government-regulated prices. If prices were lower, users would not need to steal or to consort with true violent criminals in order to support their habits. “Levels of drug-related crime, and particularly violent crime, would significantly decline, resulting in less crowded courts, jails, and prisons thus allowing law-enforcement personnel to focus their energies on the violent criminals in society and the drug production, distribution, and sale would no longer be controlled by organized crime” (Inciardi & Saum, 1996). In many nations such as the U.S. which continues to sternly punish drug use, its citizens, because of high crime rates caused by the war on drugs and high tax rates used to support the war on drugs, are beginning to question the wisdom of continuing to fund this fruitless endeavor. The war on drugs is policy based on morals, not on public health, and is taking a grave toll on the economics and civil liberties of that country’s society. “The U.S. government is spending an enormous amount of money to wage this war – a figure that has exploded in the last two decades. In 1981, the federal drug control budget stood at $1.5 billion. By 1991, it was $11 billion. Today, it is $17 billion” (“Sane Drug Policy”, 1999). Law enforcement has proved not to be an effective deterrence in drug use and have made the drug war less effective. The evidence shows that stricter enforcement laws have led to the use of even more potent and more dangerous drugs. Higher drug arrest rates have caused prison overcrowding and early releases of violent prisoners putting them back on the street which causes more problems and amplifies costs for the public both in personal terms and in judicial expenses. Drug dealers have resorted to juvenile street dealers, who face less severe sentences. “The escalation of enforcement increases property crime, violent crime, and corruption and does not reduce drug abuse and may increase it” (Rasmussen & Benson, 1994). People of the world differ on many issues but most all can agree that parents do not want their children to use drugs and that the current policies of their particular nation are not effective. Many argue that legalizing drugs is tantamount to endorsing their use therefore encouraging children to partake in mind-altering substances. The truth, which is seldom a component of drug policy debates, is that decriminalization is a reasonable solution that protects civil liberties and will ultimately reduce the number of children who use. This approach, in conjunction with effective treatment programs, is the only proven method of combating the violent, debilitating, financially draining and socially harmful global drug problem. Works Cited Chaiken, J. & Chaiken, M. “Drug Use and Predatory Crime.” Drugs and Crime – Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research. J.Q. Wilson & M. Tonry (Eds.). Vol. 13. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (1989). Currie. E. Reckoning: Drugs, The Cities And The American Future. New York, Hill and Wang. (1993). Dembo, R.; Williams, L.; Getreu, A.; Genung, L.; Schmeidler, J.; Berry, E.; Wish, E.D.; & La Voie, L. “A Longitudinal Study of the Relationships Among Marijuana/hashish Use, Cocaine Use, and Delinquency in a Cohort of High Risk Youths.” Journal of Drug Issues. Vol. 21, (1991). pp. 271-312. Inciardi, James & Saum, Christine. “Legalization Madness.” Public Interest. N. 123. (Spring 1996). p. 72+. June 10, 2008 Rasmussen, David & Benson, Bruce. “The Economic Anatomy of a Drug War: Criminal Justice in the Commons.” The Independent Review. V. 1, N. 2. (Fall, 1994). June 10, 2008 < http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=36&articleID=483> “(A) Sane Drug Policy.” The Progressive. V. 63, I. 10. (October, 1999). p. 8. June 10, 2008 Read More