An adult conversation about drugs?!

[abdoujaparov]

I was given a well funded piece of research to do by the government on the link between drug use and crime. I found that the link was tenious and in most cases non-existent. They gave it back to me and told me to fabricate the results so that there was a link as it was to be published. I left the company that assigned me the work on ethical grounds.

Until the political machinations that reinforce this kind of deceit are removed I reckon any adult conversation regarding drugs will be confined to sites such as this.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

yeah, right and I was asked by the Chinese government to invent a new ray gun for them

for fuck's sake, you cant even spell tenuous

[abdoujaparov]

Are you saying there is a direct link between crime and drug use?

[Rufus Gwertigan]

I'm saying that I dont believe worm was asked to research anything by the government, never mind being asked to falsify his finding

in answer to your point, there is a direct link between crime and drug use. Alcohol is responsible for a significant proportion of violent crime. Most habitual users of illegal drugs commit crime in order to pay for their addiction - so yes there is a direct link between illegal drug use and crime (mind you, that link would probably be broken if the drugs werent illegal...)

[abdoujaparov]

i agree with worn that the link is tenuous. Not all addicts thieve and not all thieves are addicts. The only statistics available are from self reporting of offenders who have a vested interest in how their crime is perceived by others. It cannot be proven that people commit robbery type crimes as a direct result of drug use. Many of there offenders were in a poor environment anyway and still may have turned to crime. I am not saying that some users dont feed their habit through crime but I feel that the real number is far less than people think.

Edited September 21, 2012 by abdoujaparov

[Spindles]

I think whatever the actual numbers are, that last paragraph is the sensible view.

As long as narcotics are illegal people will need to mix with and maintain links to criminals to buy them.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

the link is far from tenuous, and there's plenty of methodologically sound research, and anecdote, to suggest otherwise. A significant proportion of habitual drug users offend in order to sustain their habit. It's very hard for most habitual heroin or crack users to keep a £200 a day habit going from legitimate means. The simple fact is that a large proportion of habitual drug users commit property crimes. Whatever the numbers - it's probably several tens of thousands - the link is obvious, real and proven.

But, of course, if those drugs weren't illegal, and addiction treated as a medial issue not a criminal justice one, the link would go away.

[abdoujaparov]

Yet care studies show that many uses that commit crime to "fund" their habit had committed crimes before they became users. I read a statistic that around 30% of the income from their crime is spent on drugs. What do they spend the rest on? There is on way I could imagine an offender reporting as a drug uses to manipulate the criminal justice system either.

Edited September 21, 2012 by abdoujaparov

[Rufus Gwertigan]

the point at issue is whether drug use and crime are linked. The fact is that a significant proportion of habitual illegal drug users commit crime to support their habit. What they did before they used rugs is irrelevant. There is a clear link between their offending now and their habitual use of drugs. The link is real, demonstrable and proven

[Spartacus Mars]

I have to use the case of Ketamine, how any educated person can justify lying comatosed out on the ground in the middle of a packed festival in the dark is clever after taking a drug that's for horses which they have paid silly money for from a farmer who is laughing all the way to the bank - yet clearly some intelligent if very misguided young people are doing so. And how exactly would decriminalising farmerceuticals like ketamine work?

[abdoujaparov]

How can you discount behaviour before they became users? Without knowing that how can you show that criminality is a direct result of drug use.

[Spartacus Mars]

It's also true the numbers of heroin users sky-rocketed after prohibition. Once you give criminals an incentive to make millions, billions even, they will create and exploit those markets ruthlessly.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

because what they did before they were addicts cannot possibly have anything to do with whay they do to sustain an illegal drug habit - unless you're saying that there is some underlying genetic or behavioural reason that means that because they have offended in the past they must do so again. The fact is - and this isnt my opinion, it's what stacks of criminological reasearch demonstrates - that habitual users of illegal drugs commiut property crimes to fund their habit.

[abdoujaparov]

and my point is that they may commit the crime anyway. There is evidence to show that as well. My argument is that drug use in itself is not the causative factor. If it was you could assume that if all drugs were removed from the system there would be something like a 50% drop (plucked out of the air) in property crime. Also although purely anecdotal I would say that the actual figure of people commiting crime to "feed" their habit may well be a tenth of what is actually reported. I am in the process of trying to put that figure to the test.

I am not saying that some people dont commit crime to fund their drug use, I am saying that more often that is not their main factor in an often intricate web.

[grumpyhack]

Isn't it a case that some people who are addicted will turn in desperation to all sorts of things that they previously wouldn't have considered to fund their habit - for example theft or prostitution?

Edited September 21, 2012 by grumpyhack

[Spartacus Mars]

Isn't it a case that some people who are addicted will turn in desperation to all sorts of things that they previously wouldn't have considered to fund their habit - for example theft or prostitution?

[feral chile]

because what they did before they were addicts cannot possibly have anything to do with whay they do to sustain an illegal drug habit - unless you're saying that there is some underlying genetic or behavioural reason that means that because they have offended in the past they must do so again. The fact is - and this isnt my opinion, it's what stacks of criminological reasearch demonstrates - that habitual users of illegal drugs commiut property crimes to fund their habit.

Edited September 21, 2012 by feral chile

[abdoujaparov]

That's faulty logic. You could just as well say there's a link between crime and supermarket shopping, iphones, alcohol, having babies, etc. etc. if that's what they're spending the rest of their ill-gotten gains on. We're looking for a causal link, not some kind of market research on how they spend their money.

So whether they had previously committed theft is an important factor in demonstrating causality rather than correlation.

[feral chile]

Sorry, but it is entirely a causal link. many habitual users of illegal drugs commit property offences in order to fiund their habit. That is the reason they offend. They do not steal because they are pre-programmed to offend. The causality is situational, not hardwored in some way.

The fact remains that, in many cases, take away the habitual use of illegal drugs and you take away the offending.

There are essentially two ways you might do this. Remove the addiction or remove the need to obtain funds to purchase black market drugs

Edited September 21, 2012 by feral chile

[abdoujaparov]

I'm not disputing the evidence, since I haven't read the research. all I'm saying is that if someone steals before they used drugs, then taking drugs didn't cause them to steal. they steal AND take drugs, and use their thefts to fund their lifestyle, that now also includes drugs. The whole point of a causal link is that the cause precedes the effect.

You could say that being among lawbreakers makes them at greater risk of meeting dealers, in which case there may well be a link, but the causal sequence is reversed. So stealing may increase your risk of being introduced to drugs.

Stats mean nothing unless you interpret them correctly.

There are lots of people in high powered jobs, and celebrities, who take drugs. Is there a link there too?

[feral chile]

But on the whole, people commit crimes for situational reasons, rather than as a result of inherent psychological defects (there are exceptions - psychopathy, mental illness etc).

So they fact that someone stole before they became an habitual drug user does not suggest that the cause for their offending lies in some underlying defect. For example, if I stole a Mars bar when I was a kid and then several years later, necame addicted to heroin and committed burglaries to fund my habit, my habit almost certainly caused my offending, not some deep seated flaw I had carried around for years....

many (if not most) habitual drug dealers - aside from the wealthy who can afford to pay for it legitimately - commit property offences to pay for their habit. They steal primarily because they are addicted to illegal drugs. They are not burglars (or whatever) who decide to spend some of the proceeds of their crime on heroin rather than a new sofa....

[abdoujaparov]

mmm...they steal because they ca\n't afford their habit. They steal because they can't afford the car they want. They steal because they can't afford the new techie toys they want, can't afford their kids' Christmas presents etc. etc.

i'm still not convinced that drugs, rather than poverty, have driven them to crime.

Successful people also use drugs, though of course since they can fund their habit, nobody's seeing it as a social problem and looking to establish a link.

Personally, (and I must admit, apart from a first year undergraduate sociology essay, I'm speaking off the top of my head), I see links with situational factors (stress caused by poverty, job pressures etc.) and the availability of drugs to certain groups. And a link between crime and poverty.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Yes, we are talking about people who steal because they cannot afford to maintain their habit in any other way. So, in that respect, they might not steal if they were sufficiently wealthy to fund their habit in other ways. But to conclude that the are therefore offending because of poverty is stretching the point more than a little...they are offending because they have a drug habit which is beyond their means to sustain through legitimate income. take away the drug habit, or medicalise the addiction, and you take away the offending

You've done a sociology essay. I've got a masters in criminology....

[abdoujaparov]

You forget people are c**ts.

Edited September 21, 2012 by abdoujaparov

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Some are, some arent