P. 1
Prevalence of Drugs

Prevalence of Drugs

|Views: 0|Likes:
Published by Lita Astriani

More info:

Published by: Lita Astriani on Apr 29, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/09/2015

pdf

text

original

EU ICS WORKING PAPER SERIES

Drug-related Problems in Europe’s Neighbourhoods
by Gergely Hideg and Robert Manchin, based on the data of the European International Crime Survey (EU ICS), Gallup Europe

For the first time in its history, the European International Crime Survey asked its respondents about their experience with drug-related problems in their area1. The question in the survey used a four point scale asking the following: “Over the last 12 months, how often were you personally in contact with drug related problems in the area where you live? For example seeing people dealing in drugs, taking or using drugs in public spaces, or finding syringes left by drug addicts? Was this often, from time to time, rarely or never?”. This paper introduces the main findings of the survey. The question was previously used by several Eurobarometer surveys in the 15 older member states of the EU. Please note that some of the reported drug incidents (e.g. those involving soft drugs, such as cannabis) may not qualify as criminal offence according to the penal code of certain EU member states. Overall, every fifth citizen in the seventeen countries where the EU ICS was carried out reported drug-related events in their neighbourhood.
Figure 1. Drugs in the neighbourhood
100 oft en + from t im e t o t im e 90 ra rel y + n ev er 80 72 70 64 60 52 50 42 40 33 29 30 26 26 24 21 20 21 20 20 20 15 15 14 11 10 10 10 9 8 4 0 68 73 78 75 79 78 79 79 84 85 85 87 90 89 90 91 95

Denmark

Hungary

Belgium

Germany

Sweden

Greece

France

Spain

UK

Poland

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Portugal

Scotland

* weighted average without the sep arate Northern Irish and Scottish samp les

Nine percent claim to often see drug-related activity in their neighbourhood, and a further 11% say that they are confronted with the phenomenon regularly (i.e. “from time to time”).

1

Since 2005, this question became a standard item in the International Crime Victimisation Survey (ICVS) global questionnaire.

The data used in this working paper is the copyright of the EU ICS Consortium, led by Gallup Europe. The EU ICS was co-funded by the European Commission, FP6. The consortium website might be found at http://www.europeansafetyobservatory.eu The working paper is the copyright of its author(s).  2005-2007, All rights reserved.

N. Ireland

Finland

Ireland

Austria

Italy

EU-17*

In a number of countries we see a much larger difference. Again. indicating a clear. All rights reserved. and especially in the largest cities. Scandinavian countries – together with Hungary – show the lowest levels of drug-related activities in their home area. the ranking does not change dramatically. The consortium website can be found at http://www. Stockholm 2 . Figure 2. In Finland. we find that the drug-related incidents are 27% more likely to be witnessed if someone lives in a capital than the national average (national: 20%. There are six countries in Europe. such as those leading the ranking) are the ones with the lowest prevalence of significant drug problems. Copenhagen. Belfast and London are other capital cities where the difference of the local prevalence and the national average is at least 50%. where drug use is a rarely reported phenomenon. significant concentration of the visible drug problems in the capitals. Looking at the difference across Europe.). where a quarter of the citizens or more report having seen (signs of) public drug use in the area where they lived. 1. The EU ICS was co-funded by the European Commission. Spain. Drugs in the neighbourhood in European capitals 100 90 80 73 69 70 60 50 40 33 31 30 20 10 0 30 29 26 25 22 18 18 16 16 16 12 9 9 48 47 41 41 56 58 65 68 70 73 oft en + fr om t im e t o t im e r a rely + n ev er 77 82 84 81 83 83 90 87 91 Brussels Rome Kopenhagen* Edinburgh Amsterdam Budapest Helsinki Dublin Berlin Madrid London Vienna Athens Belfast Lisbon Paris Capital cities * Kop enhagen metro area Amsterdam. FP6. The level of drug-related experience in Vienna is 29% compared to 14% nationwide.  2005. Looking at capital cities. the difference is even higher: it is 123% more likely that a Helsinki resident reports such incidents compared to the national average. The data used in this working paper is the copyright of the EU ICS Consortium. 2. which is a more than double difference (107%). Finland and Sweden (both strict prohibitionist countries. even if the actual level remains one of the lowest among the European capitals. The strict prohibitionist Greece (42%) and Portugal (33%) stand out with the most citizens reporting such incidents (EU ICS respondents from Luxembourg.eu The working paper is the copyright of its author(s). It is not surprising that the levels of serious (illegal) drug problems are higher in the more urbanised regions. Amsterdam emerges as a city with drug-related incidents almost as widespread as Athens and Lisbon (Fig.).europeansafetyobservatory. capital city 25%). the prevalence of public drug use is the lowest in Stockholm and Helsinki. led by Gallup Europe. Italy and the Netherlands are also more likely than the average to report incidents related to illegal drugs).EU ICS Working Paper Series: Prevalence of Drug-related Problems in Europe’s Neighbourhoods Such incidents are much more often reported in Southern Europe than in the rest of the countries (Fig.

illustrates below. As Fig. 3. however the relationship is somewhat weaker. All rights reserved. Contact with drug-related problems and past year victimisation 60 n o or r a re ex posu re t o pu bl ic dru g u se 50 frequ en t or r egu l a r ex posu re t o pu blic dru g u se 44 40 35 33 30 32 29 30 28 23 22 27 27 26 22 20 20 18 15 12 10 10 10 11 9 17 15 18 16 12 10 18 16 19 15 13 12 1110 11 8 18 10 10 0 Denmark Hungary Belgium Sweden France Germany Greece Finland Luxembourg Netherlands Poland N. vs. in all but one country (Portugal) the prevalence of the 10 volume crimes measured by the EU ICS3 is higher (often times much higher) among those who report drug-related incidents in their area than among those who can’t recall such problems.01 level (2-tailed) Jan Van Dijk-Robert Manchin-John van Kesteren-Sami Nevala-Gergely Hideg: Burden of Crime in the EU.085.083 among those above 30). Figure 3.EU ICS Working Paper Series: Prevalence of Drug-related Problems in Europe’s Neighbourhoods Witnessing drug-related incidents and crime victimisation: is there a connection? Persons who have been in contact with drug-related problems in the past 12 months were exposed to crime significantly more in the past year than those who do not report such contacts in their area. 17% in the older age groups). led by Gallup Europe. Scotland Austria EU-17* Spain Italy UK 3 . the relationship between crime experience and contact with drug-related problems prevail in each age segment. While the association between witnessing drug-related incidents and crime victimisation is indeed higher in the young age group (Pearson correlation . Ireland Portugal Ireland * weighted average without the sep arate Northern Irish and Scottish samp les The connection remains if we control the urbanisation effect: the same exists in the capital city sample. Comparative Analysis of the EU International Crime Survey (EU ICS) 2005 4 see: Burden of Crime in the EU The data used in this working paper is the copyright of the EU ICS Consortium.eu The working paper is the copyright of its author(s).europeansafetyobservatory. The correlation between the two factors is . FP6. . The EU ICS was co-funded by the European Commission. . Without exception. in each of the 16 capitals we find a higher victimisation rate among those who indicate drug-related problems in their area.  2005.121 vs.1122 on the average of the 17 EU member states. 2 3 all correlations in this paper are individual-level Pearson Correlations. Younger persons are more prone to be victimised4 and also more likely to be in contact with drug-problems (31% in the 16-29 years. The consortium website can be found at http://www. significant at the 0. Another variable that is suspected to influence the relationship of contact with drugs and victimisation history is the age of the respondent.

be/euics The data used in this working paper is the copyright of the EU ICS Consortium. Those who have witnessed drug-related dealings in their neighbourhood are significantly less likely to feel fairly or very safe walking after dark in their area (71% feel safe among those without exposure vs. The same association exists in every capital city.EU ICS Working Paper Series: Prevalence of Drug-related Problems in Europe’s Neighbourhoods As Table 1. 46%. EU ICS Working Paper Series.eu The working paper is the copyright of its author(s). The EU ICS was co-funded by the European Commission. Exposure to drug-related incidents in the neighbourhood has a detrimental effect to the citizens feeling of safety. while the sheer lack of personal victimisation experience does not make people happy. Besides and beyond reducing crime. The consortium website can be found at http://www. and victimisation PAST YEAR VICTIMISATION AGE 16-29 30-59 60+' CONTACT WITH DRUGS IN LOCAL AREA no + rare regular + frequent no + rare regular + frequent no + rare regular + frequent not victimized 81 70 87 80 93 89 victimized once or more 19 30 13 20 7 11 Drug problems and safety The EU ICS found that in Europe. http://www.europeansafetyobservatory. the more secure one feels the more likely is this person to have a high life satisfaction. Age. contact with drug problems. respectively). the contact with drugs increases the chance of being victimised in Europe. In other words. not that much the actual crime victimisation – or the lack of it –. All rights reserved. the question of “How safe do you feel walking alone in your area after dark” has the greatest explanatory power to the life satisfaction of the respondent as opposed to questions asking about “fear of crime” or avoidance of crime. 61% of those who had contact with drug-related problems). 5 Laura Szabó and Robert Manchin 2005. The Effect of Crime Experience and Personal Safety to Subjective Well-being. led by Gallup Europe.  2005. FP6. The EU ICS found that contrary to the great amount of criticism it receives. but the level of personal safety determines the subjective well-being of the citizens5. shows. as well (54% vs. 4 .gallup-europe. policies need to address this need of the citizens to increase their well-being. Table 1.

Even if it seems that in some countries there is only a weak effect of public drug use / dealing with the persons’ safety in that area. we find controversial results. Safety by exposure to drug-related problems in local neighbourhood (ranked by the effect of contact with drug-problems) 1 00 n o or r a re ex posu re t o pu blic dru g u se 90 frequ en t or regu la r ex posu r e t o pu blic dr u g u se 83 80 81 77 73 70 77 75 71 68 66 67 59 69 74 87 84 82 80 75 72 70 75 72 70 66 61 56 56 75 71 64 61 73 62 58 53 63 61 60 52 50 52 40 30 30 20 10 0 Denmark Sweden UK Germany Luxembourg Netherlands Scotland N. In several countries drug exposure does not have an adverse effect on how safe people feel. Policing as well as social policies have to continue to focus on this issue to enhance the quality of life of the European citizens. The consortium website can be found at http://www. Spain and Poland. Polish and Finnish who report drug problems in their area have a much deteriorated feeling of safety. we see some clear differences in the extent it interferes with one’s personal safety. FP6. The EU ICS was co-funded by the European Commission. On the other hand such exposure seems to have no effect on Hungarians. Austrians. Safety is clearly not a derivative of one particular variable that describes the environment of the citizens from a particular perspective. including Northern Ireland and Scotland). The latter group includes the countries on the British isles (Ireland and the UK. Looking at the drug problem as a safety issue. and Dutch. we see a clear connection if we extend our focus (and narrow our location). led by Gallup Europe. while in some other countries this relationship is extremely strong. All rights reserved. Those Scottish. Hungary Belgium Greece Poland Finland Portugal Ireland France Spain Austria EU-17* Italy 5 . French. From a capital city subsample in most of the countries6 we know that the quality of environment affects one’s safety to a large extent. Belgians.eu The working paper is the copyright of its author(s). the prevalence of drug-related problems has no significant correlation with how much it affects the safety of the people. Estonia and Poland The data used in this working paper is the copyright of the EU ICS Consortium. Our results are however inconclusive whether or not strict prohibitionist policies can reach their goals: we see some positive examples (especially Sweden and Finland) but generally we do not find a clear positive relationship between more liberal drug policies and more widespread problems.EU ICS Working Paper Series: Prevalence of Drug-related Problems in Europe’s Neighbourhoods Looking at the effect of drug-related problem exposure by country (Fig 4.europeansafetyobservatory. Figure 4. In neighbourhoods where 6 N~400 in all countries. but Luxembourg.  2005. the three Scandinavian countries. Somewhat contra-intuitively. Ireland * weighted average without the sep arate Northern Irish and Scottish samp les The EU ICS confirms that the significant presence of drugs on the streets has an adverse effect on people’s feeling of safety as well as the security of the area.).

streetlights not functioning. 7 “slum factors” measured: cars speeding.301 correlation with the overall “slum” variable we created from the list of adverse conditions in the neighbourhood. EU ICS used a three-point scale to measure the extent of each phenomenon (often. people are less likely to feel safe. speeding cars. led by Gallup Europe. FP6. graffiti.eu The data used in this working paper is the copyright of the EU ICS Consortium. All rights reserved. Environment and Safety in European Capitals. etc7. EU ICS Working Paper Series. littering. showing a . A dichotomous unfavourable living environment („slum”) variable was created based on these responses to each case. And universally.europeansafetyobservatory. houses in a very bad state of repair. such as loitering. 6 . The consortium website can be found at http://www. sometimes. http://www. unsupervised youth on the street.EU ICS Working Paper Series: Prevalence of Drug-related Problems in Europe’s Neighbourhoods there are a lot of unfavourable environmental factors.  2005. slums make their citizens feel less secure in the capitals of the EU8. 8 Gergely Hideg and Robert Manchin 2005. The EU ICS was co-funded by the European Commission. public intoxication.europeansafetyobservatory. Drugs come along with these other symptoms of unfavourable living environment. never). graffiti. loud parties or noises.eu The working paper is the copyright of its author(s).

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->