doi:10.

1093/bjc/azp014

BRIT. J. CRIMINOL. (2009) 49, 513531

Advance Access publication 1 April 2009

THE CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN DRUG MISUSE AND

CRIME
Trevor Bennett and Katy Holloway*

Introduction
One of the most influential explanations of the causal connection between drug use and
crime was developed by Paul Goldstein in a series of articles published in the late 1980s.
Goldstein proposed a tripartite conceptual framework that divided explanations of the
connection into three models: economic-compulsive, psychopharmacological and
systemic (Goldstein 1985). Economic-compulsive crime was committed as a means of
generating money to support drug use. Psychopharmacological crime occurred when
the use of drugs resulted in change or impairment in cognitive functioning. Systemic
crime was associated with crime that occurred as part of the system of drug distribution
and use. This taxonomy was soon accepted as the definitive conceptualization and has
been used extensively ever since (see Bennett and Holloway 2005 for an overview).
In the following years, the strengths and weaknesses of Goldsteins approach came
under scrutiny. Parker and Auerhahn (1998), for example, argued that Goldsteins
categories were not testable propositions, but unelaborated assumptions that failed to
explain the mechanisms that linked drug use and crime (Parker and Auerhahn 1998:
306). They also thought that the tripartite categories were not mutually exclusive (e.g.
systemic crimes might also be economically motivated) and did not account for
interactions between the categories and individual characteristics and social context.
White and Gorman (2000) believed that Goldstein had overemphasized the importance
of the systemic model at the possible cost of underestimating the role of economic
factors (White and Gorman 2000: 192) and, moreover, argued that research conducted
in the 1980s had shown that the systemic model was not applicable to the majority of
youthful drug users because they were not involved in the high-level drug distribution
system (White and Gorman 2000: 192).
*Professor Trevor Bennett, Director, Centre for Criminology, University of Glamorgan, Pontypridd, CF37 1DL, United Kingdom;
thbennet@glam.ac.uk; Dr Katy Holloway, Reader in Criminology, Centre for Criminology, University of Glamorgan, Pontypridd,
CF37 1DL, United Kingdom.

513
The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (ISTD).
All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of the West of Scotland on October 29, 2012

One of the most influential accounts of the causal connection between drug use and crime was
developed by Paul Goldstein in a tripartite conceptual framework that divided explanations of the
connection into economic-compulsive, psychopharmacological and systemic (Goldstein 1985).
The aim of this paper is to examine the validity of the taxonomy in explained drug-related crime
across different crime types and to identify some of the mechanisms involved. This was done by
interviewing drug-misusing offenders currently serving sentences of imprisonment in the United
Kingdom about the role of drug use in their recent crimes. The paper concludes that Goldsteins
taxonomy should be refined to take into account the wide range of factors that influence the
connection between drug use and crime.

BENNETT AND HOLLOWAY

Empirical research on mechanisms linking drug use and crime

Since the early work of Goldstein on drug-related homicides in New York City, there has
been a large number of qualitative studies that have examined the mechanisms by which
different kinds of drug use and crime might be connected. We found 15 empirical
studies that were qualitative in design and examined the details of the mechanisms that
connected drug use and crime. Most of these studies (11 of the 15) focused on specific
kinds of drug use or specific types of crime: five examined the connection between drug
use and prostitution, four looked at the relationship between drug use and burglary or
robbery, and two looked at crimes committed by amphetamine or crack users. The
remainder (four of the 15) looked at multiple drugcrime connections.
Research on drugs and prostitution identified some of the intricacies of mechanisms
linking drugs and crime. Feucht (1993) found that crack use connected to prostitution
in many different ways including enabling the women to cope with the difficult work
conditions, making them feel sexy, reducing their inhibitions and making the client more
relaxed. This study alone shows how difficult it can be to identify all of multifarious ways
514

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of the West of Scotland on October 29, 2012

In response to concerns such as these, the US National Institute of Justice (NIJ)

established in 2001 a forum for researchers to discuss the progress and prospects of
Goldsteins taxonomy in explaining drug-related crime and to propose a drugs and
crime research agenda for the twenty-first century (Brownstein and Crossland 2003).
One of the three papers commissioned for the research forum aimed specifically at
examining the usefulness of Goldsteins tripartite taxonomy and establishing what more
was needed to be known about the causal relationship between drug use and crime. The
paper concluded that no single model could explain all drug-related crime and that
more attention needed to be paid to the variations in the relationship between different
drugs and different crimes, as well as the effects of demographic differences such as
gender and ethnicity (MacCoun et al. 2003).
One of the most important implications that emerged from this debate was the
acceptance that the tripartite system was substantially undeveloped and needed to be
revised. It was devised initially to explain drug-related homicide in New York during a
period of a developing crack epidemic and an expansion of violent (particularly youth
gun) crime. While several studies (mainly conducted in the United Statessee Parker
and Auerhahn 1998: 304 for a review) have used Goldsteins approach to explain
homicide or other forms of violent crime, there has been no systematic attempt to test
the taxonomy across a range of drug and crime types.
The current state of knowledge about the causal connections between drugs and crime
is, in a sense, imbalanced. On the one hand, Goldsteins framework remains universally
respected and widely considered the accepted means of explaining the connection
between drug use and crime. On the other hand, writers continue to report on its
problems and limitations and continue to bemoan the fact that we still know very little
about the causal connection between drug use and crime. One answer to this problem is
to begin the process recommended in the NIJ report to determine how far Goldsteins
tripartite categorizations can be developed to help understand modern forms of drugrelated crime. The aim of this paper is to contribute to this task by examining the validity
of the three main categories of the taxonomy across different crime types and by
identifying some of the more detailed mechanisms linking drug use and crime.

THE CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN DRUG MISUSE AND CRIME

What is known about the causal mechanisms linking drug use and crime?
It is clear from the empirical research to date that there are many different mechanisms
by which drug use and crime might be connected that are not wholly evident from the
tripartite conceptualization. Economic factors include committing crimes for money
515

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of the West of Scotland on October 29, 2012

in which drugs and crime might be causally connected. Maher and Curtis (1992) reported
that crack use fundamentally altered the nature of prostitution in a wide range of ways,
including the number of women on the streets, the kind of sex work that they did, the
amount of money that they received and interactions with the informal economy.
Research on drug-related property crime has also identified a variety of mechanisms
linking drug use and acquisitive crimes such as burglary, robbery and drug dealing.
Bennett and Wright (1984) found that the pharmacological effects of alcohol often
gave potential offenders courage that then prompted them to commit an offence. They
also showed that burglars sometimes had already decided to commit an offence and
consumed these drugs to give them the courage to act upon it. Cromwell et al. (1991)
found that drug use often impaired judgment, which affected not only the decision to
offend, but also the risks that might be taken in selecting the potential target. Wright
and Decker (1997) interviewed currently active armed robbers in St Louis, Missouri,
and found that the proceeds of robbery were often used for pleasure-seeking purposes
that typically included drug use.
Studies focusing on the crimes of specific types of drug user have also helped identify
potential drugcrime mechanisms. Wright and Klee (2001) showed that amphetamine
users became involved in violence as a result of the psychoactive effects of the drug in
providing confidence and energy, economic motives such as raising money for drugs
and through systemic violence resulting from involvement in a drug-using subculture.
Brain et al. (1998) found that the main link between drug use and crime among crack
users was economic and the need for money to buy drugs.
Research that has compared the mechanisms linking several drug and crime types has
provided an opportunity to examine variations in the drugcrime connections across
different kinds of offences. Carpenter et al. (1988) interviewed 100 young people living
in the community in New York State in the United States about the relationship between
their drug use and crime. They found that thefts were typically committed to obtain
money for drugs, violence was often the result of the pharmacological effects of recent
drug use and burglaries were often committed intentionally under the influence of
drugs for their facilitative effect. Similar results were obtained by Palacios (1996), who
interviewed 40 arrestees in Dade County Jail in the United States. Theft, shoplifting and
deception were mainly committed for money for drugs, whereas stealth crimes such as
burglary were often committed under the influence of tranquillisers and alcohol for
their calming effects, to reduce fear and to give offenders confidence that they would
not get caught. Bean and Wilkinson (1988) interviewed drug users in Nottingham,
England, and noted that assault was associated with drug dealing, violence was generally
associated with tranquilliser use through judgment impairment effects and burglary was
normally committed for items to be sold for drugs. Simpson (2003) similarly reported
that burglary and shoplifting were often committed for money to buy cannabis; theft
from family members was typically associated with raising funds for heroin use; and
shoplifting was associated with the judgment-impairing effects of benzodiazepines.

BENNETT AND HOLLOWAY

Methods
The aim of the research method was to obtain the views of drug-misusing offenders
about the role of drug use in their recent crimes. This was to be done by first asking
them whether any of their crimes were connected to drug use and then requesting them
to provide detailed narratives about the way in which these offences unfolded.
The research was conducted in three prisons (two in Wales and one in England)
selected by purposive sampling. This method of selection was designed to yield a range
of respondents with different kinds of backgrounds and to generate information on a
wide cross-section of drugcrime connections. The method of selecting prisoners
involved working with a liaison person to identify a suitable group of prisoners to contact.
In two prisons, this involved identifying all prisoners on the CARAT (Counselling,
Assessment, Referral, Advice and Throughcare) scheme for monitoring and treating
prisoners with drug problems. In the third prison, respondents were identified by
sampling all prisoners on a particular wing. A letter was sent to all selected prisoners
requesting that they agreed to be interviewed. The letters described the research and
explained that it concerned the connection between drug misuse and crime, as well as
giving information relevant to ensuring informed consent and providing assurances
about confidentiality. Prisoners who replied positively were interviewed.
In total, we interviewed 41 prisoners. As the aim of the research was to generate a
purposive sample of a small number of prisoners rather than a representative sample of
all prisoners, the size of the sample was not a problem for the qualitative analysis. The
respondents were all males with an average age of 33 and an age range of 2256. Over
90 per cent (n =
38) of the respondents were white and the remainder were black (n =
1)
1

Several terms are used in the text to describe Goldsteins tripartite framework, including the tripartite conceptualization,
taxonomy, typology, categorization and approach. In all cases, they refer to Goldsteins original tripartite division. Several
terms are also used to describe the three elements of the framework, including models, categories and explanations. In all cases,
they refer to the economic-compulsive, psychopharmacological and systemic elements of the framework.
2

A distinction is made in the text between the three elements of the framework and the mechanisms involved. In all cases,
the word mechanisms is used to refer to the various practical ways in which drug use and crime might be connected (e.g. a
psychopharmacological explanation might be the product of a judgment-impairing mechanism).

516

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of the West of Scotland on October 29, 2012

for drugs, or stealing drugs directly, or buying drugs from the proceeds of crime as a
celebration for committing a successful offence. The pharmacological effects of drugs
cause intoxication and judgment impairment or provide unexpected courage or are
consumed specifically to provide the courage to offend. Systemic and lifestyle factors
include a wide range of ways in which drug users and criminals might come together
and result in drug-related crime.
It would be useful as part of developing this knowledge base to know more about the
various mechanisms that link drug use and crime across a range of drug and crime
types. Such a list could be used both to evaluate Goldsteins tripartite conceptualization
and to extend the conceptualization to include mechanisms relevant to offences other
than violence and homicide.1 As far as we know, there has been no systematic attempt to
develop a comprehensive list of mechanisms that connect drug use and crime across
crime types.2 In the current paper, we aim to contribute to this task by providing
information from interviews with drug-misusing offenders in the United Kingdom on
the details of the mechanisms linking drug use and crime.

THE CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN DRUG MISUSE AND CRIME

517

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of the West of Scotland on October 29, 2012

or of mixed race (n =
2). The main offences for which they were currently serving
sentences were: drug offences (11), assault or weapons offences (eight), robbery (five),
murder (four), death by dangerous driving or threats to kill (three), shoplifting (three),
burglary (two), arson (one) and fraud (one). Three prisoners were on remand. The
average sentence length being served (excluding lifers) was 63 months, ranging from 6
months to 15 years.
The main method of data collection was a structured questionnaire followed by a
semi-structured interview. In practice, a single research instrument was used that
included both elements. The main advantage of the structured questionnaire was that
it allowed the collection of demographic and factual information quickly and efficiently
without taking up interviewing time. The main advantage of the semi-structured
interview was that it allowed more time to be spent on the narrative section of the
interview on the mechanisms linking drug use and crime. It also allowed respondents to
answer questions in their own way with minimal control and direction from the
interviewer (for a discussion on the advantages of these methods, see Bryman 2008;
Barbour 2008; and Kraska and Neuman 2008).
One of the aims of the structured questionnaire was to identify the relationship
between a selection of 10 drug types and 10 crime types, making up a total of 100
potential drugcrime connections. During the semi-structured interview, the offender
was then asked to describe some of these connections in detail. When only a few
connections were identified in the structured questionnaire, the offender was requested
to talk about all of them. When a larger number of connections were identified, the
choice of connection to discuss was based on a system of quota sampling. Over the
course of the research, the study aimed to obtain narratives covering all, or most, of
the drugcrime connection categories identified in the structured questionnaire. The
match between the connections identified and the narratives obtained was continually
checked for consistency. In total, 137 detailed narratives of specific drugcrime
connections were obtained from the 41 respondents (approximately three per person).
All interviews were tape-recorded, with the offenders permission, using a digital
recorder and transcribed verbatim.
The transcripts were analysed first by identifying each narrative of a particular drug
crime connection. The narratives were then investigated to identify each drugcrime
mechanism mentioned. The total list of mechanisms was then analysed to determine the
most frequently occurring explanations. These concepts were then grouped into provisional
categories based on Goldsteins taxonomy (e.g. economic, pharmacological and
systemic). The most common unique mechanisms (e.g. money for drugs) were then
identified within each main category by examining the content of each offence
description. These were coded separately by the authors and compared until an
agreement was reached on the most parsimonious set of mechanisms to include.
There are a number of limitations to the current research. The first is the small sample
size of offenders. It is possible that a larger sample would have led us to the discovery of
a larger number of drugcrime connections. However, samples of about this size are
common in qualitative research and are usually thought sufficient to reach saturation
on the major response categories (Miller and Glasner 1997). Second, our sample is
made up entirely of individuals who have been apprehended and imprisoned for their
offences and it could be argued that these do not represent all offenders. This is less of
a problem with qualitative research in that it is not necessary to ensure that the sample

BENNETT AND HOLLOWAY

is representative of all offenders. Instead, the research aims to obtain a broad range of
responses. Third, offenders accounts of their actions are inevitably retrospective and
might not accurately portray their thinking at the time. We tried to minimize this effect
by encouraging respondents to provide narratives of their action rather than questioning
them directly about their motives.
Results

518

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of the West of Scotland on October 29, 2012

Respondents were asked whether any of ten drug types and ten crime types had ever
been connected. In other words, they were asked about 100 potential drugcrime
connections. In total, 77 of the 100 drugcrime connections were identified by at least
one offender. In the case of the current sample, the drugcrime connection covered a
wide range of drug types and crime types (see Table 1). The most common drug types
reported as being involved in a drugcrime connection were heroin (mentioned 110
times), followed by tranquillisers, alcohol and crack. The most common offences
reported were drug dealing (mentioned 92 times), followed by handling, assault and
shoplifting. Looking at specific drugs (excluding alcohol) and specific crimes shows
that the three most common drugcrime connections were heroin and drug dealing,
heroin and burglary non-dwelling, and heroin and handling.
Conversely, there were some drug types and crime types that were rarely cited as
being causally linked. LSD and methadone were rarely mentioned as being linked to
crime. Similarly, there were few links mentioned between drug use and (male)
prostitution. It is also worth noting that even among offence types and drug types that
were commonly connected, there were some combinations that were seldom mentioned,
such as shoplifting and ecstasy, burglary and cocaine, and assault and cannabis (all of
which were mentioned just once).
The aim of the research was to identify different kinds of causal mechanisms that
connected drug use and crime. The main method of achieving this was to interview
drug-misusing offenders about occasions when their drug use and crime were linked.
During the interview, each respondent was asked to describe in detail a recent occurrence
of a small number of drugcrime connections that they had mentioned in the structured
questionnaire. On average, respondents were able to describe (within the time limits of
the interview) details of approximately three occasions on which a particular drug and
a particular crime were connected. The narratives provided descriptions of particular
offences showing how the offence unfolded along with the role that drug use played in
its commission.
Goldsteins (1985) tripartite division provided a starting point for coding the
mechanisms identified. Several additional steps and adaptations had to be made to
include all responses. The first step was to divide all mechanisms into whether they
related to drug use causing crime or crime causing drug use and to code them separately.
Some of the mechanisms operated in both causal directions, while others operated only
in one direction. The second was to list all unique mechanisms identified in the
narratives in order to exclude repetitions. The topics for the list initially drew on the
mechanisms identified by Goldstein et al. (1992) in their study of drug-related homicides
in New York. These were extended when necessary to include mechanisms not covered
by Goldstein et al. (1989). The third step was to combine the mechanisms where possible
into the three major categories of Goldsteins tripartite conceptualization.

6
4
8
0
11
5
2
0
12
8
56

1
1
5
0
10
7
1
0
10
8
43

Burglary
dwelling
4
1
8
0
15
8
1
0
12
8
57

Burglary
non-dwelling
11
1
8
0
12
8
4
1
11
10
66

Shoplifting

9
4
10
0
15
10
5
3
11
10
77

Handling

2
2
7
0
8
4
4
0
7
5
39

Fraud

2
2
3
0
10
8
2
0
4
6
37

Robbery

1
5
6
0
12
11
3
0
14
25
77

Assault

11
13
13
3
16
11
9
2
10
4
92

Drug
dealing

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of the West of Scotland on October 29, 2012

519

Multiple connections per respondent are possible. * Includes theft of and from a motor vehicle.

Cannabis
Ecstasy
Amphetamine
LSD
Heroin
Crack
Cocaine
Methadone
Tranquillisers
Alcohol
Total

Vehicle
crime*

Table 1

Reported drugcrime connections (n
=
41)

0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1

Prostitutionrelated

47
33
68
3
110
72
31
6
91
84
545

Total

THE CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN DRUG MISUSE AND CRIME

BENNETT AND HOLLOWAY

Economic mechanisms
Economic mechanisms focused mainly on the economic costs of obtaining drugs. These
were found in relation to both drug-use-causing-crime explanations and crime-causing-druguse explanations.
Drug-use-causing-crime connections
Obtaining money for drugs was one of three economic connections between drug use
and crime in which the need for drugs motivated the commission of the crime. There
were also several sub-categories of this connection. On some occasions, the money for
drugs was obtained directly by stealing cash through robbery or other offences that
produced instant funds:
I was drunk and seen someone by a cash point, I took his money, he took it back off me and I went to
the car where I was drunk and I started fighting with him init. And obviously I just wanted the rush init,
know what I mean, getting crack. (010)

On other occasions, funds for drugs were raised indirectly by stealing goods that were
then sold for cash and the proceeds were used to buy drugs:
so Ive pinched the car. Ive got the stereo and the system out of there, the cd stacker, was going to
sell that. So I drove to looking to sell this thing to get money to get gear .... (103)

Sometimes, the goods were exchanged directly for drugs by offering them as payment
to the drug dealer:
I went and sold the computers and that to a heroin dealer to get money for gear. (104)

Obtaining drugs directly typically involved using surplus drugs from drug dealing for
personal use. In this category, dealing was used as a means of obtaining drugs (drug use
520

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of the West of Scotland on October 29, 2012

The main change made to Goldsteins categories was that the systemic connection
was broadened to include general lifestyle factors and renamed. The systemic category
was originally conceived by Goldstein to refer to the influence of drug markets and the
relationships engendered through buying and selling drugs. In practice, we found that
other lifestyle factors also played a role in generating drugcrime connections including
crime lifestyles and lifestyles associated with deviant street cultures. Hence, our final
tripartite conceptualization included economic, pharmacological and lifestyle
explanations. The final taxonomy comprising the main categories and sub-categories
and the accounts allocated to each crime type is shown in Table 2.
The table shows the results for nine of the original ten crime types (male prostitution
was excluded on the grounds that there was only one narrative relating to it). Two
additional offences discussed by respondents (criminal damage and homicide) were
also excluded on the grounds of small numbers. In total, the analysis was based on 133
descriptions of personal drugcrime connections
The vast majority of these narratives (89 per cent) described drugcrime connections
in which drug use caused crime, while the remainder (11 per cent) gave connections
whereby crime caused drug use (see Table 2). The most common mechanisms
mentioned were economic (56 per cent of all mechanisms identified) followed by
pharmacological explanations (37 per cent) and lifestyle (7 per cent).

0
1

1
0
12

0
2

0
0

11

0
1
3

0
2
2
0
1

0
1

0
0

0
0

0
0
0

0
1

0
0

0
1
1

0
0

0
0
0

0
0

4
0

0
0
0

0
0

26

0
2

0
0

0
2
1

20
0

17

1
1

0
0

1
1
2

1
0

19

0
2

0
0

0
4
1

0
1

11

1 (0.8)
8 (6.0)

4 (3.0)
2 (1.5)

0
0

0
0

2 (1.5)

4 (3.0)

9 (6.8)

8 (6.0)

45 (33.8)

65 (48.9)

133 (100) 133 (100)

2 (1.5)

13

5 (3.8)
1 (0.8)

11 (8.3)
15 (11.3)
19 (14.3)

21 (15.8)
4 (3.0)

40 (30.1)

1
0

0
3
1

0
2

n (%)

DC
=
drug use causes crime; CD
=
crime causes drug use. Information on three offences have been excluded from the table because of small numbers
(criminal damage n =
1, homicide n =
2, prostitution n =
1).

Economic
Obtain money
0
for drugs
Obtain drugs directly
0
Save legal money
0
for drugs
Pharmacological
Aggression
10
Courage
1
Judgment
8
impairment
Lifestyle
Criminal contacts
0
Offended to get
0
treatment
Retaliation
2
Economic
Obtain drugs directly 0
Surplus proceeds of
0
crime spent on
drugs
Pharmacological
Courage
2
Lifestyle
Dealing provides
0
surplus drugs
23

Assault Burglary Burglary

Fraud Handling Dealing Robbery/theft Shoplifting Vehicle n (%)
dwelling non-dwelling
person
crime

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of the West of Scotland on October 29, 2012

521

Total

CD

DC

Casual
Explanation
direction

Table 2

Mechanisms linking drug use and specific crimes

THE CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN DRUG MISUSE AND CRIME

BENNETT AND HOLLOWAY

caused the crime) rather than dealing producing a surplus of drugs (crime caused drug
use). On some occasions, the user stated that they had become involved in drug dealing
solely as a means of providing for his or her personal drug needs:
I decided if I was going to still take heroin Id either always have it or I wouldnt take it no more. So
I decided to start dealing it. (085)

Most of my shoplifting is around, I would say, clothes. I could be out shopping and Ill take something.
I might spend two, three hundred pound and steal a hundred pound. the money I save not buying,
that goes back into my drugs. (018)

Crime-causing-drug-use connections
There were two economic connections that occurred when the crime in various ways
caused drug use.
Obtaining drugs directly occurred when users obtained drugs directly by stealing
them rather than by paying for them. The most common way that this occurred was in
relation to robberies of drug dealers. This was different from drug causes crime
explanations in that drugs were obtained incidentally as part of the offence:
We robbed the dealer for his heroin, to smoke his heroin and crack. But it wasnt really for the crack,
it was the heroin, coz I didnt have a crack habit. But he was a crack dealer. So I would have smoked
some of the crack it was only a couple of pieces there . (101)

Surplus proceeds of crime spent on drugs was a crime-causes-drug-use explanation

that referred to the incidental purchase of drugs following the commission of a successful
crime. This kind of connection is sometimes referred to in the literature as chemical
recreation whereby offenders celebrate a successful crime by spending the proceeds on
pleasure pursuits including drugs (Menard et al. 2001). Some users referred to drug
purchases following a crime as a bonus:
Crack, is like, what do you call it, if you got the money, its a bonus. You might splash out, you might
treat yourself .... (012)

Others mentioned wanting to spoil themselves:

If we had a good day shoplifting see, then wed spoil ourselves and get some crack then like you know.
So, we dont go for the crack if we havent got a bit of money behind us anyway. (080)

Variation among crime types

Economic mechanisms were identified in drugcrime connections involving most crime
types. However, some drug-related crimes were more strongly associated with economic
mechanisms than others. The highest proportion of economic mechanisms was found
in the case of drug dealing (85 per cent), shoplifting (74 per cent) and robbery/theft
522

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of the West of Scotland on October 29, 2012

Saving legal money for drugs was a similar method of funding drug misuse from
crime. Instead of using the proceeds of crime for drugs, money obtained from crime
was used to fund daily subsistence so that legal income could be diverted to buy drugs.
A common example of this was cases of shoplifting for items of general need as a means
of releasing legal funds for drug purchases:

THE CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN DRUG MISUSE AND CRIME

person (71 per cent). This compares with 33 per cent among handling offences and 0
per cent among assaults (see Table 2). The most common drugs associated with drug
dealing were heroin (17 per cent) amphetamine (14 per cent) and ecstasy (14 per
cent); shoplifting was most frequently connected to use of heroin (18 per cent),
tranquillisers (17 per cent) and cannabis (17 per cent); and robbery was mainly
associated with heroin (27 per cent) and crack use (22 per cent) (see Table 1).

I just take what I need each day. Bag everything up and then sell it and then what I need I take out.
(018)

Shoplifting
Money for drugs was the main reason given for drug-related shoplifting. This was
sometimes explained in terms of the pressing need for drugs caused by dependence
and withdrawal. Paul was a 40-year-old regular heroin user currently serving a sentence
for drug dealing who explained the urgency of need for more drugs and the motivation
for money to fund them:
Obviously if youre using heroin for a certain amount of time over a week, constant, and you aint got
none, you get withdrawal symptoms and the withdrawal symptoms are so intense, youre lethargic,
youre feelings and thats all over the place, you got cramps in your stomach, its just a mad mission just
to make yourself normal, which obviously is going to get some money, going to buy it and sort yourself
out like so the only way to raise some money I thought at the time was shoplifting. (130)

Robbery
Money for drugs was the main economic reason for robbery and, in most cases, was the
cause of the offence. This was described by Frank, a 30-year-old currently serving a
sentence for robbery, assault and theft who committed robbery mainly to fund his crack
habit:
I wouldnt have taken that money if I hadnt been on the crack because I needed my next stone and
thats the reason I done the robbery really, to go get more money for crack. I was desperate for the
money to get crack coz I didnt have no money. (039)

Pharmacological mechanisms
Pharmacological connections were made when the psychological effects of the drugs
caused the crime or the crime caused the offender to seek out the psychological effects
of the drugs.
523

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of the West of Scotland on October 29, 2012

Drug dealing
Obtaining drugs directly from crime was the most frequently mentioned economic
mechanism identified in over three-quarters of all connections involving drug dealing.
In practice, dealers funded their own drug use directly from the surplus drugs in their
possession. John was a 35-year-old, currently on remand for assault, who made a living
out of drug dealing and managed to support his drug habit from the proceeds:

BENNETT AND HOLLOWAY

Drug-use-causing-crime connections
Aggression was a common pharmacological link between alcohol use and crime. In
these cases, it was argued that alcohol generated anger, which led to assault or other
violent offences:
Id drank nearly two bottles of Pernod and I was intoxicated, know what I mean, and drink seems to
bring out the aggressive side of me, know what I mean and I reacted and I ended up punching the guy
and knocked him out. (003)

I find on valium you tend to become aggressive more quicker, more quickly. I think if someone says
something to you or does something to you, youre a lot more on edge, I dont know about on edge,
but you seem a lot more challenging in yourself, I find. (056)
But with ecstasy Im just violent if someone winds me up. Its a very different head on. Different drug.
Ecstasy is a bad choice for violence. (026)

Courage to offend was another means by which the pharmacological effects of drugs
led to the commission of crime. Certain types of drugs (such as tranquillisers, alcohol,
amphetamines and crack) sometimes gave users confidence to do things that they would
not otherwise have done. In some of these offences, drug use led to the commission of
crime that had not previously been planned as a result of the feelings of courage that
they engendered. The effect of the drug in giving courage was often described as a
feeling of being invincible and invisible:
Pretty much when I used to take loads of valium, it used to make me feel invincible and I would just go
and starts robbing just for the fact that I thought I could and Id get away with it I thought I was
invisible and no one would see me. (004)

Judgment impairment occurred when users said that they made faulty decisions
under the influence of drugs or they did not know (or could not remember) what they
were doing at the time:
I just done it, someone gave me some tablets one time and I was just mashed I didnt even know
what Id done all I know is that I smashed loads of windows. (011)

Others spoke about the effect of the drugs on their ability to think about the
consequences of their actions:
Youre living for the drug, thats a way of putting it. You dont care; you dont think of the consequences at all, youre living for today basically. (023)

Crime-causing-drug-use connections
The pharmacological effects of a drug were sometimes caused by the desire to commit
a crime. Courage to offend was sometimes actively sought by taking drugs prior to an
offence as a means of providing the confidence to commit it:
Id been thinking about robbing this particular petrol station beforehand you know what I mean. But
this [drugs] gave me the bravado to go and just confront it head on man. (002)

524

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of the West of Scotland on October 29, 2012

Other drugs were also claimed to have led to crime through generating aggression,
including valium and ecstasy:

THE CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN DRUG MISUSE AND CRIME

Variation among crime types

Pharmacological mechanisms were most frequently associated with assault (91 per cent)
and burglary dwelling (46 per cent). By comparison, they were rarely mentioned in
relation to drug dealing (12 per cent) and handling (0 per cent). The most common
drugs associated with assault were alcohol (33 per cent) and tranquillisers (18 per cent)
and burglary dwelling was connected to use of heroin (23 per cent) and tranquillisers (23
per cent).

It [alcohol] was fuelling it. It was making me more angry because I was so hyped up, you know what I
mean. Fuelled my anger. Id say it fuelled my anger and I ended up I mean I just destroyed the guy
know what I mean. That was something that was nothing to do with me. But I know the alcohol played
a big part in it. (070)

Judgment impairment was the second most common explanation for the association
between drug use and assault. Users who mentioned this typically described the way in
which alcohol consumption (sometimes used in conjunction with tranquillisers) affected
their decision making and the way in which they reacted to situations. Joe Bloggs, a
35-year-old white male currently serving a prison sentence for death by dangerous
driving, said that he would have responded to confrontational situations differently if
he had not consumed alcohol:
it was a reaction on my behalf like because he come to me and started on me like. It [alcohol]
affects your judgement dont it I dont think it would have gone that far like (without alcohol), possibly wouldnt have gone to that confrontation . (034)

Burglary dwelling
Courage was sometimes described as a mechanism linking drug use and burglary
dwelling. Steven, a 27-year-old white male from the local area currently serving a prison
sentence for burglary, explained how valium motivated him to offend:
I didnt go out specifically to commit that its just the valium, mad sense of confidence, it gives you
you feel untouchable with valium . (036)

Others took the drug before an offence that they had already planned to help facilitate
the crime:
a couple of valium just to take the edge off . To do the crime, to keep myself calm . (063)

Lifestyle mechanisms
Lifestyle linked drug use and crime when features of the users routine activities created
an opportunity for both drug use and crime.
525

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of the West of Scotland on October 29, 2012

Assault
Aggression was a frequently mentioned link between drug use (usually alcohol and
tranquillisers) and assault. Mr Right was a 34-year-old white male serving a prison
sentence for robbery. He described how alcohol use exacerbated his aggression and
tendency to violence:

BENNETT AND HOLLOWAY

Drug-use-causing-crime connections
Criminal contacts is one of three explanations that linked to drug-user lifestyles. These
accounts draw attention to the way in which drug use and crime can occur in the same
general setting:
you get to know the people, coz its all related around that sort of thing init know what I mean,
drugs and crime and all that . (035)

[I was] drinking and doing drugs, I had become homeless, I had lost everything. And I couldnt see no
way out. I had heard through you know other people, that if you go through prison they have to give
you a place when you get out. So, I done it on purpose really. (028)

Retaliation was the main mechanism linking drug use and crime in the case of drugrelated disputes that often were resolved through the use of violence:
Mainly thats where Ive laid somebody on or theyve come short or theyve scudded me with, like if
somebody wants 100 pounds worth of drugs and they give me 80 pound, Im not going to be happy am
I? Im not going to let them get away with it can I? So, you gotta punish them one way or another.
(021)

Crime-causing-drug-use connections
Dealing provided surplus drugs occurred when drug dealing provided surplus drugs
that were consumed by the dealer for personal use. This is different from the earlier
category in which users became drug dealers specifically to fund their drug use. In this
case, the respondent was a drug dealer anyway and only used occasionally when there
was a surplus of drugs:
I suppose, I was using ecstasy and that because I was selling it, I had so much, I was just taking them
as well kind of thing like. I werent actually selling them to support my own habit, it was just coz they
were there like. (122)

Variation among crime types

Lifestyle mechanisms were mentioned less frequently than other drugcrime
connections and, for some crime types (such as burglary dwelling, fraud, robbery and
shoplifting), were not mentioned at all. Lifestyle connections were noted most
frequently in relation to handling stolen goods (67 per cent). The most common
drugs associated with handling were heroin (20 per cent) and tranquillisers (14
per cent).
Handling stolen goods
Lifestyle was the most common mechanism linking drug use and handling. Jason, a
31-year-old white male currently serving a prison sentence for robbery and dangerous
526

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of the West of Scotland on October 29, 2012

Offended for treatment was an explanation given by one user who thought that
committing an offence and being arrested would lead to treatment within the criminal
justice system. This links to other lifestyle explanations in that the chaotic conditions of
his life generally made it difficult to obtain treatment by other means:

THE CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN DRUG MISUSE AND CRIME

driving, explained how meeting other cocaine users provided a market for handling
stolen goods:
So really its just my use of me taking coke and meeting other coke users then thats got me connected
to the handling really. Thats when you get to handle the stolen goods then is when they come in to
your house and say do you want to swap this radio set for a bit of blow or whatever. (108)

Discussion

The tripartite typology

Offenders accounts of the ways in which their drug use and crime were connected fell
more or less into the three main groups identified by Goldstein. There were clearly
economic and pharmacological connections, as well as some systemic connections
linking drug misuse and crime. In other respects, the tripartite typology fared less well.
The systemic category was too limited to explain all of the contextual connections that
might link drug use and crime. In effect, it identifies the role of drug lifestyles as a factor
that links to crime but does not consider crime lifestyle factors that might link to drug
use or more general lifestyle factors that might encompass the two. As a result, it was
found necessary to expand this category into a more general lifestyles group that
encompassed all of the explanations given.
While it was possible to code all offenders accounts of their drug-related crimes into
these three categories, there remained some difficulties in doing so. First, Goldsteins
taxonomy does not differentiate drug-use-causing-crime and crime-causing-drug-use
connections (perhaps understandably, as his model was based on homicides).
Nevertheless, the mechanisms linking the two causal directions are quite different and
need to be separated within the typology. Second, the failure of the model to provide
exhaustive categories made coding difficult when two or more options for classification
existed. This often applied in relation to lifestyle accounts, which sometimes included
pharmacological or economic explanations. In the current study, this was resolved by
giving precedence to the broader lifestyle common cause explanation. Ideally,
interactions between categories should be taken into account. The third problem is that
Goldsteins typology does not consider differences across crime types. While systemic
explanations provided important insights into drug-related homicides in New York
(Goldstein et al. 1989), they were much less relevant in explaining the types of offence
investigated in our own research. Drug-related assaults, for example, were explained
almost wholly by pharmacological mechanisms and shoplifting was explained largely by
economic conditions.
527

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of the West of Scotland on October 29, 2012

The background for this paper is the report of the US National Institute of Justice (NIJ),
which discussed the problems of Goldsteins taxonomy in explaining drug-related crime
(Brownstein and Crossland 2003). The report concluded that more research was needed
to determine how far Goldsteins tripartite categorizations could be improved to help
understand modern forms of drug-related crime. The aim of this paper is to contribute
to this task by examining the validity of the tripartite taxonomy across different crime
types and by identifying some of the more detailed mechanisms that link drug use and
crime.

BENNETT AND HOLLOWAY

The need for testable propositions

Cultural context
One of the major problems with Goldsteins taxonomy is that it does not take into
account cultural context. Social group culture provides a context for decision making
about drug use and crime and operates at a broader level than the individual categories
of the tripartite taxonomy. In this sense, economic, pharmacological and lifestyle factors
all function within this broader context. Economic decisions are made in the context of
a value system that generates certain attitudes towards money and the way in which it is
obtained and spent. Pharmacological effects are enacted within a value system that
defines culturally appropriate behaviour following intoxication. Lifestyle factors that
bring drug users and offenders together operate in a cultural context that determines
and defines the behaviour of both. In this sense, culture helps shape the nature of the
tripartite link between drug use and crime. Goldsteins taxonomy might be developed
further by taking into account the cultural context in which it operates.
Research on drug user and offender cultures (especially research on street culture)
has identified several features relevant to the drugcrime connection. One relevant
feature of this culture is the desire for hedonism. This has been noted by Wright et al.
(2006), who described the pursuit of sensory stimulation and disdain for conventional
living as a characteristic of many street criminals. They refer to the idea of life as a
party and the drive to keep the party going. The drive for hedonism was also expressed
among our respondents in various ways, including living an affluent lifestyle. I seen my
mates and theyre driving about in Subarus and that, just from selling dope and all that,
and I thought, I could start selling dope (007). Drug use was also regarded as a
hedonistic pursuit in itself and was used by some as a means of celebrating a successful
crime. If we had a good day shoplifting see, then wed spoil ourselves and get some
crack then like you know (080).
Another feature has been described as a desperate and immediate need for drugs or
cash. This feature of street criminals was described by Brookman et al. (2007), who
noted the often pressing need for fast cash. Offenders regularly appeared to experience
large and urgent problems that required some kind of immediate solution. Some of the
narratives of particular drugcrime connections demonstrated the urgency of their
perceived need to obtain drugs. Once you like start withdrawing youre in pain and the
528

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of the West of Scotland on October 29, 2012

Goldsteins typology has been criticized on the grounds that the categories are descriptive
assumptions rather than testable propositions because they fail to provide details on the
precise mechanisms linking drug use and crime or the conditions under which these
mechanisms operate (Parker and Auerhahn 1998). The current research has identified
some of the more detailed mechanisms linking drug use and crime in relation to each
of Goldsteins three main categories. The research has shown that each of the main
categories includes several distinct mechanisms linking drug use and crime. For example,
economic factors might involve committing crimes for money for drugs as noted by
Goldstein. However, they might also involve stealing drugs directly, stealing subsistence
items to save legal income for drugs and spending the surplus proceeds of unrelated
crime on drugs. Identifying mechanisms linking drug use and crime can help convert
broad assumptions into testable propositions.

THE CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN DRUG MISUSE AND CRIME

Conclusion
Several conclusions can be drawn from the research and the preceding discussion.
The first is the need to place Goldsteins taxonomy in an explanatory hierarchy that
shows the relationship between broader social contexts, middle-range explanations
and more detailed mechanisms. The causal connection between drug use and crime is
likely to vary by cultural context and perhaps even location. The second is that
theoretical development needs to be based on empirical evidence and, to achieve this,
more work needs to be done on the detailed mechanisms linking drug use and crime.
The current study has made some contribution to this by identifying some of the
529

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of the West of Scotland on October 29, 2012

only way to stop that pain is to do more heroin and to get the money I was like forced to
go out and shoplift (005).
A third characteristic that emerged from the offenders accounts in the current
research was the apparent disregard for the consequences of their actions. This has also
been noted in previous research. Shover and Honacker (1992) reported that street
criminals tended to reject long-term planning in favour of thinking about the moment.
Wright et al. (2006) also noted the tendency of street robbers to live life for the moment
without regard for consequences. Similar values were described among our drugmisusing offenders, who often claimed not to have thought about the outcomes of their
actions. When you get into the rut, you dont care. Youre living for the drug, thats a
way of putting it. You dont care, you dont think of the consequences at all, youre living
for today basically (023).
The fourth feature of their lives that helps to explain the drugcrime connection is
their attitude to money. Previous research has shown that offenders tend not to save
money for the future or to plan their budgets. Showing a casual disregard for money
and purchasing conspicuous, but non-essential, items is part of the offender street
culture. Wright and Decker (1994) explained how carefree spending can create an
impression of affluence, which generates status on the street. Interest in fast cars and
expensive items was also expressed among our respondents. Greed, better cars, bigger
houses, being the man. It also gives you the buzz, of being that person, probably
being recognised, you know (022).
A fifth characteristic notable in these accounts is the respondents limited approach
to decision making. The main problem that drug users have to solve is to obtain a
regular supply of drugs. In many of the cases described, the method of solving this
problem (committing highly visible crime) is extremely risky, dangerous and, in some
senses (if they are caught and imprisoned), unproductive. As one drug user who
specialized in robbery said, thats probably one of the quickest ways of making money.
Its just whether youve got the balls to go and do it. But the risk factor is high, very
high. Definitely outweighs the gain from it (016).
One implication is that the mechanisms that link drug use and crime are shaped by
the social and cultural setting in which they occur. Current knowledge about the drug
crime connection is based largely on samples drawn from street criminals or drug users
and their accounts and our understanding of the connection has been formed by this.
It is possible that research based on samples of drug users or offenders from quite
different subcultures (such as white-collar criminals or drug users in professional
careers) would identify different mechanisms linking drug use and crime.

BENNETT AND HOLLOWAY

References
Barbour, R. (2008), Introducing Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
Bean, P. T. and Wilkinson, C. K. (1988), Drug Taking, Crime and the Illicit Supply System,
British Journal of Addiction, 83: 5339.
Bennett, T. and Holloway, K. (2005), Understanding Drugs, Alcohol and Crime. Buckingham:
McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.
Bennett, T. H. and Wright, R. (1984), The Relationship between Alcohol Use and
Burglary, British Journal of Addiction, 79: 4317.
Brain, K., Howard, P. and Bottomley, T. (1998), Evolving Crack Cocaine Careers: New Users,
Quitters and Long Term Combination Drug Users in N.W. England. Manchester: University of
Manchester.
Brookman, F., Mullins, C., Bennett, T. H. and Wright, R. (2007), Gender, Motivation
and the Accomplishment of Street Robbery in the United Kingdom, British Journal of
Criminology, 47: 86184.
Brownstein, H. and Crosland, C. (2003), Toward a Drugs and Crime Research Agenda for the
21st Century. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice.
Bryman, A. (2008), Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carpenter, C., Glassner, B., Johnson, B. D. and Loughlin, J. (1988), Kids, Drugs, and
Crime. Toronto: Lexington.
Cromwell, P. F., Olson, J. N., Avary, D. W. and Marks, A. (1991), How Drugs Affect
Decisions by Burglars, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,
35: 31021.
Feucht, T. E. (1993), Prostitutes on Crack Cocaine: Addiction, Utility, and Marketplace
Economies, Deviant Behavior, 14: 91108.
Goldstein, P. (1985), The Drugs/Violence Nexus: A Tripartite Conceptual Framework,
Journal of Drug Issues, 15: 493506.
Goldstein, P. J., Brownstein, H. H., Ryan, P. J. and Bellucci, P. A. (1989), Crack and
Homicide in New York City, 1988: A Conceptually Based Event Analysis, Contemporary
Drug Problems, 16: 65187.
Goldstein, P. J., Brownstein, H. H., Ryan, P. J. (1992), Drug related Homicide in New
York, 1984 and 1988, Crime and Delinquency, 38: 459476.
Kraska, P. B. and Neuman, W. L. (2008), Criminal Justice and Criminology Research Methods.
London: Pearson.
MacCoun, R., Kilmer, B. and Reuter, P. (2003), Research on DrugCrime Linkages: The Next
Generation, in H. Brownstein and C. Crosland, eds, Toward a Drugs and Crime Research Agenda
for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice.

530

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of the West of Scotland on October 29, 2012

sub-categories involved, but larger surveys should be conducted across time and
locations to identify important themes and variations. The third is that the study
supports the conclusions drawn in the NIJ report (Brownstein and Crossland 2003)
that Goldsteins tripartite conceptualization does not wholly explain the drugcrime
connection and more work needs to be done in understanding the causal processes
involved. This might take the form of theoretical advances through, say, integrating
the different explanatory levels involved and empirical advances through identifying
further mechanisms linking drug use and crime and their association with individual
and demographic characteristics.

THE CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN DRUG MISUSE AND CRIME

531

Downloaded from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of the West of Scotland on October 29, 2012

Maher, L. and Curtis, R. (1992), Women on the Edge of Crime: Crack Cocaine and the
Changing Contexts of Street-Level Sex Work in New York City, Crime, Law and Social
Change, 18: 22159.
Menard, S., Mihalic, S. and Huizinga, D. (2001), Drugs and Crime Revisited, Justice
Quarterly, 18: 26999.
Miller, J. and Glasner, B. (1997), The Inside and the Outside: Finding Realities in
Interviews, in D. Silverman, ed., Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice. London:
Sage.
Palacios, W. R. (1996), Explicating the DrugCrime Relationship. Ann Arbor, MI: University
Microfilms International.
Parker, R. N. and Auerhahn, K. (1998), Alcohol, Drugs, and Violence, Annual Review of
Sociology, 24: 291311.
Shover, N. and Honaker, D. (1992), The Socially Bounded Decision Making of Persistent
Thieves, Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 31: 27693.
Simpson, M. (2003), The Relationship between Drug Use and Crime: A Puzzle Inside an
Enigma, International Journal of Drug Policy, 14: 30719.
White, H. R. and Gorman, D. M. (2000), Dynamics of the DrugCrime Relationship, in
G. LaFree, ed., Criminal Justice 2000: The Nature of Crime: Continuity and Change, 151218.
Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.
Wright, R. and Decker, S. (1994), Burglars on the Job: Streetlife and Residential Break-Ins.
Boston: Northeastern University Press.
(1997), Armed Robbers in Action: Stickups and Street Culture. Boston: Northeastern University
Press.
Wright, R., Brookman, F. and Bennett, T. H. (2006), The Foreground Dynamics of Street
Robbery in Britain, British Journal of Criminology, 46: 115.
Wright, S. and Klee, H. (2001), Violent Crime, Aggression and Amphetamine: What Are
the Implications for Drug Treatment Services?, Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 8:
7390.