DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE

CRIMINOLOGICAL VIEW OF DRUG USE

SUBJECT

CRIMINOLOGY, PENOLOGY AND VICTIMOLOGY

NAME OF THE FACULTY

DR VARA LAKHSMI

Name of the Candidate

MNS LALITH KUMAR

Roll No. & Semester

2016059 & SEMESTER – 8

Acknowledgement

I would sincerely like to put forward my heartfelt appreciation to our respected professor,
Prof.Vara lakhsmi mam for giving me a golden opportunity to take up this project
regarding''criminological view of drug use”. I have tried my best to collect information about
the project in various possible ways to depict clear picture about the given project topic.

I would like to thank all my best wishers for supporting in doing this project.
ABSTRACT:

The relationship between drugs and crime has a long history and is a mainstay of fiction, widely
documented in media reports, and the subject of substantial scientific investigation. Drugs are
not always illegal, and their sale and use does not always lead to crime. Nevertheless, drugs and
crime are related to each other in at least three ways. First, the immediate effect of drugs on the
mind and body may create mental or physical states that somehow facilitate aggression or theft.
Second, drugs are connected to crime when a drug user has a pressing need to consume them but
lacks the necessary funds to do so; such situations may lead to predatory crimes, including
burglary, robbery, or theft, among others. A third way in which drugs and crime are related is
that some psychoactive substances are illegal to use, trade (buy or sell), or grow/manufacture.
When drugs are illegal, illicit market participants are unlikely to report being victimized to the
police, which means that predators are more likely to prey on them; in turn, there may be
retaliation when this happens. In short, drugs can be related to crime if they cause a mental or
physical state conducive to lawbreaking, lead to a perceived need that results in the motivation to
steal, or result in a decrease in access to formal mediation and a corresponding increase in
predatory and retaliatory crimes. Drug use behaviors often debut in adolescence and, because the
brain is still developing, adolescents are at greater risk than adults for developing addiction
problems, which may lead to persistent drug abuse behaviors in adulthood. Three classic
criminological theories are often used to explain adolescent drug use behaviors. These theories
include strain theory, which proposes that when stress accumulates, especially over a relatively
short time, it can increase the propensity towards drug use. Social learning theory is the next
theory and it indicates that we learn drug use behaviors from those who we spend the most time
around, including our family, close friends and neighbors. Social control theory is the final
theory and it proposes that when adolescents have strong bonds with family, friends and the
community, they are less likely to use drugs but when those bonds are weak, they are more likely
to use drugs.
TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. INTRODUCTION
2. EXISTENCE OF DRUGS AND CRIME RELATIONS
3. THE STATISTICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DRUG USE AND CRIMINAL
BEHAVIOUR
4. THEORIES THAT DESCRIBE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DRUG
USAGE AND CRIME
5. THE COMPLEX RELATION OF DRUGS AND CRIME
6. EVIDENCE ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DRUGS AND CRIME
MAKES THREE POINTS
7. LEARNING AND CULTURAL TRANSMISSION THEORIES
8. CONTROL THEORIES
9. STRAIN THEORY
10. CONFLICT THEORY
11. CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION:

Developing theories regarding deviant and criminal behavior has long been a priority in the
social sciences. Adolescents are frequent and important subjects in drug use and abuse research
for numerous reasons. I believe one important factor is that adolescents have a greater propensity
towards risk-taking behaviors and are therefore at an increased risk for a multitude of negative
outcomes such as substance dependence, addiction, exposure to sexually transmitted diseases,
early pregnancy and crime. The relationship between drugs and crime has a long history and is a
mainstay of fiction, widely documented in media reports, and the subject of substantial scientific
investigation. Drugs are not always illegal, and their sale and use does not always lead to crime.
Nevertheless, drugs and crime are related to each other in at least three ways. First, the
immediate effect of drugs on the mind and body may create mental or physical states that
somehow facilitate aggression or theft. Second, drugs are connected to crime when a drug user
has a pressing need to consume them but lacks the necessary funds to do so; such situations may
lead to predatory crimes, including burglary, robbery, or theft, among others. A third way in
which drugs and crime are related is that some psychoactive substances are illegal to use, trade
(buy or sell), or grow/manufacture. When drugs are illegal, illicit market participants are unlikely
to report being victimized to the police, which means that predators are more likely to prey on
them; in turn, there may be retaliation when this happens. In short, drugs can be related to crime
if they cause a mental or physical state conducive to lawbreaking, lead to a perceived need that
results in the motivation to steal, or result in a decrease in access to formal mediation and a
corresponding increase in predatory and retaliatory crimes.

EXISTENCE OF DRUGS AND CRIME RELATIONS:

According to the literature on the drug-crime link, there is relationship between abusing of drugs
and involvement criminal activities. A growing number of literature and research have archived
that connections exists between drug abuse and criminal offenses. The relationship between drug
abuse and crime is complex. Not all people who misuse drugs become addicted, nor do they
commit violent crime. Social and financial concerns, such as crime, sickness, premature death,
and critical misfortune in profitability are altogether influenced by alcohol and drug abuse.
Throughout the previous three decades India has turned a transit hub as well as a destination for
heroin and hashish produced in the ‘Golden Triangle’ and the ‘Golden Crescent’. Furthermore,
different psychotropic and pharmaceutical preparation and precursor chemicals delivered locally
and also in different parts of the world are also trafficked through Indian region .The two-way
illicit flow of these drugs and chemicals not only violates India’s borders, but also poses a
significant threat to national security. Consumption of psychoactive substances has two
noteworthy impacts: intoxication and addiction. These impacts are connected, separately, to the
psycho-pharmacological and financial habitual models of the connection between drugs and
crime. The primary model associates drug abuse and intoxication with a decrease in cognitive
functions and a lack of self-control, leading to aggressive impulses, violence and lack of
inhibitions. The second model refers to the huge costs that are connected with being dependent
on certain drugs. A person addicted to these drugs would need to engage in lucrative criminal
activities in order to pay for them.

THE STATISTICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DRUG USE AND CRIMINAL

BEHAVIOUR:

The rate of crime in India is very high .The relationship between Alcoholism and crime is
complex because behind in every crime, drugs and alcoholism is main role to increase in mostly
cases. There are various quite different sorts of correlation between Alcoholism, Illegal drug use
and other kinds of crime. Some of these connections recommend that the drug use itself causes
or explains the crime; others suggest that involvement in other kinds of crime helps to explain
the drug use. The most frequently recurring connections suggest that drug use and crime are both
linked to other underlying financial and sub social components. Much of the crime due solely to
offenders’ drug habits. Drug offences can therefore be explained because the drugs are
criminalised. Aside from driving affected by alcohol or drugs, there is not much evidence of the
sort of direct causal connection amongst that would exist if the drugs were not criminal.
Specifically, cannabis and other use, all alone, is to a great degree once in a while connected with
criminal action. That is not to say that problem drug misuse, any more than problem drinking,
has no relationship to a whole range of crimes. This evidence suggests a very strong link
between alcohol and crime, consuming more amounts of alcohol than highly unlawful substances
is linked to violent crime. This does not mean that alcohol or other drug use alone cause crime.
The point with both legal and illegal drugs use is that the explanation for the main link with
criminality lies elsewhere – in socio-economic and sub cultural factors.
The relationship between substance abuse and violent crime is also seen as a reason for the
criminals, who are supporters of the situational crime prevention approach. Their emphasis on
"proximate" causes which are capable of crime prevention, uses substances, but in a possible
situation, it is used to differentiate between types of crimes which can then be the focus of the
situation solutions is. In this sense, violence related to alcohol becomes a special kind of crime,
against which the policies and practices of prevention can be employed. There are more stringent
views about the use of substance and most other scholars of crime, which is considered to be a
cause of the latter for the latter. Given that it has been well established that the use of the
substance is neither an essential reason for crime (because there is a crime in the absence of the
use of the crime substance) nor the adequate cause of the crime (because of drugs and alcohol
Widely used without criminal behavior), their research is guided by the idea of a possible cause
instead, in which the issue is whether substance use increases the probability of crime.

THEORIES THAT DESCRIBE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DRUG USAGE AND

CRIME:

(1) Drugs Use lead to crime,

(2) Crime lead to Drug Use,

(3) Relationship is either coincidental or explained by a group of common causes.

DRUGS LEAD TO CRIME:

One causal model posits that alcohol and drug use lead to crime because of the
psychopharmacological properties of drugs, the economic motivation to get drugs, or the
systemic violence associated with the illegal drug market. The psychological model proposes
that due to the inefficiency of addiction, such as imbalance, cognitive-perceptual distortions, lack
of attention, bad decisions and neurochemical changes, causes criminal (especially violent)
behavior. Chronic intoxication, due to factors such as withdrawal, sleep deprivation, nutritional
deficits, impairment of neuropsychological functioning, or enhancement of psychopathologic
personality disorders, may also contribute to subsequent aggression and crime. It has gained
greater support in the alcohol literature, than in literature about other drugs. Many biological and
neural sciences systems have been encouraged to explain the increase in the risk of violence by
the use of alcohol. To demonstrate the continuous use of cannabis, sedatives and amphetamines,
many research poses a threat to the vicious cycle. It is additionally understandable that medicines
and alcohol use can help to influence violent behavior. No conclusive evidence supports a direct
connection between cocaine usage and violence. Also, there is no evidence (except for real and
small samples) that the intense use of phencyclidine (PCP), lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), is
associated with violent acts, except that the use of already existing psychotherapy.

In whole, the psychopharmacological model seems applicable for clarifying a potential causal
relationship between alcohol and violence among adults but little of the relationship between
drugs and crime. The Economic Motivation Model assumes that drug users need to generate
illegal income to support their drug habit. In this way, they are involved in crimes like robbery,
theft, and prostitution to get drugs to buy drugs or to buy them. Support for the financial
inspiration show originates from literature on heroin addicts, which demonstrates that raising or
bringing down the recurrence of substance use among addicts raises or brings down their
recurrence of wrongdoing, particularly property crimes. Studies in the 1970s found that more
female drug users were prostitutes than were drug dealers, as crack selling became profitable,
some women gave up prostitution in favor of dealing. Still, many women who use crack continue
to be heavily involved in prostitution, and the economic motive is clear. Major illegal activity
drug delivery for heroin-cocaine users is distribution. Studies show that cracks are heavily
involved in dealing with users, but they are also involved in nonnarcotic drugs.

The systemic model assumes that the system of drug delivery and use is associated with natural
violent crime. Regarding the distribution of narcotics, systemic types of crimes include fights on
organizational and regional issues, enforcement of rules, punishments of and efforts to protect
buyers and sellers, and transaction-related crimes such as robberies of dealers or buyers, assaults
to collect debts, and resolution of disputes over quality or amount. Drug markets can create
community disorganization, which, in turn, affects the norms and behaviors of individuals who
live in the community. Such community disorganization may be associated with increases in
crime that are not directly related to drug selling. This is probably accounts for most of the
current violence related to illicit drug use, especially drug-related homicides. Goldstein (1997)
suggested that at any given time, systemic violence is associated with whatever drug is most
popular. Overall, the results of these studies suggest that deviant individuals are attracted to drug
selling, rather than that drug selling causes individuals to become criminals.

CRIME LEAD TO DRUGS:

This is based on the assumption that distracted persons are more likely than non-distracted
persons to choose or push in social situations and sub-cultures, in which the use of heavy alcohol
and drug use is waived or encouraged. For example, instead of the need to strengthen a drug to
rob a person, income generated from a robbery can provide the person with extra money to
preserve medicines and therefore place the individual in an environment that supports drug use.
It has also been suggested that many aspects of professional criminal lifestyle are suitable for
drinking and drug use in large amounts, such as such as working periodically, partying between
jobs, being unmarried, and being geographically mobile. Apart from this, it has been proposed
that the distracted persons can use drugs for self-medication or give an excuse to work
themselves in a distracted manner. It is also possible that both of the above mentioned models
are correct and that the relationship between substance abuse and crime is reciprocal. That is, the
use of substance and crime can be linked to the cause and can be mutually strengthened. For
example, when an addict has an easy opportunity to commit robbery, he or she will commit it
and then buy drugs with the money gained, not out of a compulsion but rather as consumer
expenditure. Conversely, when the need for drugs is great, users will commit crimes to get
money to buy drugs.

RELATIONSHIP IS DUE TO COMMON CAUSES:

The general reason model indicates that the drug abuse and crime are related because they share
common causes such as parental alcoholism, antisocial personality disorder, poor and genetic or
temperamental traits relations with parents. In addition, there may be general environmental and
situation related causes of drug use and crime. For example, research shows that violent crime
and crime rates are high in those areas which are poor, densely populated, racially segregated,
and composed of a transient population. Social disorganization and lack of social capital appear
to be the crucial mechanisms linking these structural characteristics to crime. Thus it is obvious
that a single model cannot account for the drug and crime relationship among all individuals. For
some individuals, some drugs, such as intense, and possibly chronic, cognitive effects like
alcohol, tend to tend towards criminal behavior. For others, involvement in deviant behavior
weakens for traditional norms increases and participation in the diverse subcultures, which
provides opportunities and reinforcement for deviant increasing behavior, In the end, with the
use of medicine, perhaps for the sake of others, perhaps the majority, biocyclical factors (e.g.,
temperament) and early parents interplay, in combination with social environmental factors,
increase the risk for involvement in all types of deviant behavior.

THE COMPLEX RELATION OF DRUGS AND CRIME:

The relationship between drugs and crime is multidimensional. The relationship between drug
use and crime is complex, it is illegal to keep, manufacture or distribute drugs with the ability to
abuse marijuana, heroin, hashes and methamphetamine or the misuse of drugs. It is also illegal to
be affected by drugs and/or alcohol, although it is being investigated as to how complex the
crime associated with drug use is. It is difficult to calculate the crimes of violent behavior
generated by the influence of drugs, theft to buy drugs or the violence associated with drug trade,
which is not very clear, it is a document. Apart from this, there are differences between the
differences between individuals, the personality traits, the chances of violent nature, the risk
factors, the addiction of drugs, and the risk factors for committing crimes. Most people who
either drink or smoke don't participate in serious crime. However, higher rates of substance
dependence exists among people on probation, parole or detained than among the all inclusive
community. However, the use of crime and drug use indicates both low self-control. Those
willing to try drugs are more incautious and may swing to street crime because of addiction.
Drug use does not create a criminal offender; however, it may intensify such actions. According
to a research, individuals who use drugs, there is no possibility of a legitimate business or
education to find a good job. Lifestyle options, along with environmental factors, genetic
determinants that will abuse drugs will commit crime.

Behavioural characteristics of users also vary depending upon drug of choice. Effects of all drugs
are not same some have greater likelihood to be related to violent crime than others found that
methamphetamine users were significantly more likely than heroin users to have committed
violent crime indicates that in comparison with other drug users, meth users are more likely to be
under the influence of either drugs or alcohol at the time of arrest and meth users were also more
likely to indicate that their crimes were related to drug use. In addition, violent crimes and
property crimes both are different and involve different motives. In comparison to other drug
users, meth users often have committed more previous offenses as indicated by arrest records
and are more likely to have committed property crimes. It found that probationers previously
convicted of violent crimes were more likely to abuse substances, engage in criminal activity and
have other mental health symptoms. looked at differences in key dimensions involved in low
self-control between juveniles engaging in crime and found that volatile temper and risk seeking
were most important when looking at crime potential of juveniles.

Various types of connections have been made between drugs and youth crimes, yet there is no
obvious reason for itself. Briefly, ‘hanging around’ with youths who do risky things, including
offending, may bring contact with drugs; alternatively ‘getting into drugs’ and hanging around
with drug users may ease, encourage or require the passage into different types of crime, Usually
the acquisition of funds for the purchase of drugs. It has been accepted for some time that various
individuals take part in criminal act to sustain their involvement in alcohol or illegal drug use.
The relationship with alcohol is particularly strong and it is estimated that over 50% of crimes
involve alcohol in some way. Further evidence on the relationship amongst alcohol and crime
comes from crime victims. Young offenders have also been found to have higher rates of drug or
alcohol use and misuse in comparison with nonoffending young people.

Drugs and crime are not limited to the same. Specifically, the normally held view that the crime
committed by problematic drug users can largely be explained by their need to finance the
purchase of illegal drugs is not clearly borne out by the evidence. A studies demonstrate that, for
some hazardous drug users, drug use and crime have begun more or less independently, without
one clearly causing the other. If we talk about cannabis so many research show that points to the
complications of relationships between drugs and crime; There are various types of medicines
and crime connections between different types of drug users. Significantly, there is no evidence
that criminals use cannabis alone on the basis of their current crime. International evidence also
supports the conclusion that people who use heroin and other occasions do not do this because
they are attracted to chemical properties or because of the need to meet unmatched physical
desires. Instead, they generally use inefficiencies in their subordination and lifestyle as a broad
partnership, usually involving many types of crime and polydrug use.
EVIDENCE ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DRUGS AND CRIME MAKES
THREE POINTS:

There are several different types of correlation between drug use and other inds of crime. Some
of these relationships suggest that the use of the drug only describes or conducts the crime;
Others suggest that joining other types of crimes helps in understanding the use of medicines.
The most frequent recurring relationships suggest that other uses of the drug and crime in
relation to other basic socio-economic and sub-cultural factors Has been explained most.

Most offenses that can be attributed fully to criminals drug crime can therefore be explained
because medicines are offenders In addition to driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs,
direct causes between drugs and crime, the type of link There is no evidence, even if the drugs
are not criminal.

But that is not to say that problem drug misuse, any more than problem drinking, has no
relationship to a whole range of crimes. It does. Excessive intake of alcohol, however, appears to
be more directly linked to violent crime than most illegal drug use. The point with both legal and
illegal drugs use is that the explanation for the main link with criminality lies elsewhere – in
socio-economic and subcultural factors. Drugs have a widespread impact on the complexity of
links between alcohol and crime and the underlying penalties for their social structure and
criminal justice intervention. Evidence not only compels restrictions on criminalization as the
necessary method of strengthening of the law through the criminal law.

SUBSTANCE USE AND CRIME:

The National Youth Survey has found that teenagers who commit serious crime have greater
potential to use medicines compared to young children, which are minor crimes. Other long-term
studies of youth have also shown that those serious crimes committed by criminals are heavy
drugs compared to those with less serious crimes. In relation to research between relationships
between drugs and crime between youth. Substance use, abuse, and dependence are more
common in the criminal justice population than in the overall public. For instance, in last three
years, the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program showed that about 66% of male and female
arrestees tried positive for illicit drugs at the time of arrest. Similarly, a study of prison prisoners
showed that twothirds of the people were abusive or dependent on drugs before they were
detained. In addition to the convicted prison convicts for a crime, 55% reported that they had
used illegal drugs at the time of their present crime.

Serious drug use can also enhance and propagate pre existing criminal activity. Despite the fact
that substance use itself is not necessarily the cause of criminal behavior, as noted earlier, the
requirement for money to buy the drugs can be a motivating factor for criminally active drug
users. Two types of studies support an incomegenerating explanation for the drug-crime nexus:
studies of the relationship between illegal income and drug purchases, and studies of the
relationship between drug use intensity and criminal activity. Persons dependent on heroin
regularly increase their criminal activities significantly during periods of accelerated drug use,
with the onset of their addictions harmonizing with a sharp ascent in their criminal activities.
Conversely, a study of heroin-dependent persons found their criminal activities diminished by
more than 80% during the months and years in which they refrained from heroin or other opiate
use. A huge rate of prison detainees (85%) convicted of burglary were assessed as abusing or
dependent on drugs, suggesting a strong link between drug use severity and income-generating
crime.

TRADITIONAL CRIMINOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF DRUG USE:

LEARNING AND CULTURAL TRANSMISSION THEORIES:

Theories of learning and cultural transmission generally assume that criminal behavior is similar
to other forms of human behavior in that crime is viewed as a product of social interaction.
Social interaction offers both a context and process wherein learning occurs and behavior
reflects the nature of what is learned through observation of one’s environment and the
socialization process facilitated by an individual’s reference groups, generally, and role models,
specifically. Within certain situations or environments, therefore, crime is normative behavior
and to be expected. Both criminal and noncriminal behaviors are thought to result from a
combination of the socialization process, situational circumstances, and group values.
According to the learning perspective, all human behavior, whether conforming or deviant, is
learned in the same manner; the difference lies in the direction of influence. Criminality is not
considered an innate human characteristic, but rather a product of interaction with others.
Learning theories, such as differential association theory and social learning theory, emphasize
the process in which criminal behavior is observed, learned, and engaged. Cultural
transmission theories are similar to learning theories but focus instead on group values (which
are shaped and perpetuated from one generation to the next by learning) that tolerate, con-done,
and even encourage crime and deviance.

Akers’ (1998) social learning theory and its precursor, Sutherland’s (1947) theory of differential
association are the most influential of the learning perspectives within criminology. These
theories focus on socialization and view criminal behavior as the result of social learning
processes; specifically, through differential association, the acquisition of criminal definitions
and attitudes, imitation and modeling of criminal behavior, and the reinforcement of that
behavior. Each of four main elements of social learning theory are important for the etiology of
drug use. First, differential association with delinquent peers offers the context by which the
other learning processes will operate. Individuals with peers who use drugs will likely have
access to an environment where drugs are available and will be exposed to definitions favorable
to the consumption of such substances. Association with drug using peers also offers a means
by which individuals will observe and thus have opportunity to imitate drug use. Finally, the use
of drugs carries with it considerable social and nonsocial reinforcements. Many individuals,
especially adolescents and young adults, are willing to use drugs simply because they perceive
their friends are favorably inclined to do the same. If an adolescent perceives a favorable
response from peers for drug use, then they are more likely to engage in such behavior.
Interestingly, past research has shown that individuals need not even observe delinquency
directly but rather perceive that the behavior will elicit peer approval. Further, recent research
from the field of neuroscience indicates that in the presence of peers, adolescents demonstrate
greater activation in reward-related brain regions, such as the orbito frontal cortex , which
offers physiological evidence for these social learning processes. Differential association and
social learning theories are some of the most widely tested by contemporary criminologists and
have received a considerable amount of empirical support. Overall, research has indicated that
differential association is a consistent predictor across a range of deviant behaviors including
substance use. More specifically, social learning variables have been found to be associated with
use of a wide range of licit and illicit substances such as alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine,
and a variety of other drugs such as opiates, inhalants, barbiturates, and hallucinogens. Cultural
transmission, or sub-cultural, theories also view drug use as a learned behavior but focus instead
on the values and definitions shared by social groups about acceptable behavior. Simply put, in
some social environments, using drugs is not viewed as deviant or delinquent but is instead a
valued or condoned activity. Drug use serves the positive function of social acceptance
necessary for group formation and continuation. Some sub-cultural theories have described such
groups as class based while others have focused on youth culture as a driving force. One of the
earliest sub-cultural approaches to crime is Walter B. Miller’s (1958) lower class focal concerns
theory. Miller argued that the lower classes place emphasis on certain values, or focal concerns,
which engender deviant behavior such as drug use. He identified six focal concerns, which he
argued explained why crime tended to concentrate among the lower classes: trouble,
toughness, smartness, excitement, fate, and autonomy. Many of these focal concerns or values
are related to drug use to varying degrees. For example, for the individual who values trouble
and excitement, the use of drugs has the potential to satisfy both. The use of drugs can also be
viewed through the prism of autonomy in that it represents a violation of the law to which few
are held to account. Cloward and Ohlin’s (1960) differential opportunity theory also offers a sub-
cultural explanation for drug use. This theory, which builds on the illegitimate opportunity
structure construct described in Merton’s (1938) strain theory, was presented as a theory of
juvenile gangs. In this theory, Cloward and Ohlin offer a typology of three “ideal types” of
juvenile gangs: criminal, conflict, and retreatist delinquent gangs. The last of these, the
retreatist gang, has significance for understanding drug use among adolescents. Youth associated
with retreatist gangs were neither violent (as in the case of the conflict gang) nor successful in
criminal endeavors (as in the case of the criminal gang), and were thus viewed as double failures.
That is to say they could compete in neither the legitimate nor the illegitimate opportunity
structure and, as a result, retreated from society into a world of drug use. Members of this kind of
comparatively unorganized gang turn to drugs as an escape from status frustration that comes
from falling short of both middle-class standards (legitimate) and those of others within their
own social class (illegitimate).

More recently, Anderson’s (1999) Code of the Street focused on the values of the modern
urban underclass to explain crime, violence, and other problem behaviors in the inner city.
While this theory focuses primarily on violence among young, African American males, it also
informs understanding of high rates of drug use and abuse within America’s inner cities.
According to Anderson, the inner city is organized into two different types of families—
street and decent, evaluative judgments made by the residents themselves that confer status in
the inner city. Unlike “decent” families, “street” families embrace an oppositional culture
characterized by a rejection of middle-class values. As Albert Cohen observed in the
middle of the 20th century, the need for status and respect among the lower classes often
involves the rejection of mainstream values (i.e., the middle- class measuring rod) and the
creation of new standards of behavior. One particular standard of behavior in opposition to
mainstream values is the tolerance, and even endorsement, of drug use. Drug use represents a
focal concern for many in the inner city whose lives are characterized by violence, desperation,
and disorganization. Drug use, abuse, and addiction, then, is a reaction to an environment
plagued by profound feelings of despair, alienation, and hopelessness.

CONTROL THEORIES:

Theories of social control are among the oldest sociological explanations for human
behavior. Indeed, a central focus for Emile Durkheim, one the founding fathers of sociology,
was the role of social control in maintaining order and solidarity in a diverse, organic society.
Many observe that the field of sociology was in fact built on the concept of control, and many
early criminological theories featured control prominently as a key construct (e.g., anomie,
containment, social disorganization). For many who study crime and deviance, social control
remains at the root of the phenomena.

Within the field of criminology, control theories enjoy a long history and influence in the
understanding of crime, delinquency, and deviance. The 1950s and 1960s produced several early
versions of control theory such as Reckless’ (1961) containment theory and Reiss’s (1951)
theory of internal and external controls. Reckless’ control theory hypothesized that two forms of
control served to affect juvenile delinquency, which he termed inner and outer containments.
Inner con-tainments were defined as self-control, good self-concept, ego strength, a well-
developed super-ego, high frustration tolerance, and a sense of responsibility. Outer
containments were described as family and school reinforcement of social norms and values,
effective supervision and discipline, and alternatives to deviance. Many of these ideas would also
appear in later versions of control theories (e.g., social bond, self-control). Reiss and Nye also
offered variants of these concepts, including personal (internal) and social (external) controls
(Reiss, 1951) and direct, indirect, and internal controls (Nye, 1958). As with all control
theories, these early approaches viewed deviance, including drug use, as a result of low levels
of control, whether internal or external to the individual. In 1969, Travis Hirschi introduced what
is considered the seminal 20th century version of social control theory—social bond theory.
Hirschi (1969) presented this theory in his book Causes of Juvenile Delinquency as a micro-level
explanation for deviance among adolescents. Hirschi presents his theory somewhat
differently from how most criminologists approached crime in that he did not aim to answer the
question of why people commit crime. Instead, he asked why they do not offend. Crime,
Hirschi reasoned, is attractive to people in their natural state because it offers benefits
relatively easy to realize. Given this natural inclination to crime, then, the real issue was what
prevented most people from offending? For Hirschi, the answer lay in social control; more
specifically, the social bond.

The social bond is the key construct underlying Hirschi’s social control theory. The social bond
is hypothesized as the theoretical mechanism by which people are able to avoid deviant or
problem behavior. Those who have strong bonds will be less likely to engage in crime, including
drug use, while those with weak bonds are more likely to participate in such behavior. Hirschi
conceptualized the social bond as possessing four distinct yet interrelated components:
attachment, involvement, commitment, and belief.

Attachment, the first and arguably most important element of the social bond, is described as
identification with peers and parents, emotional bonds with family and friends, and concern for
the opinions of others. Involvement is defined as the amount of time consuming activity spent
in conventional activities (studying, working, extracurricular activities) as well as the amount
of non-inactive leisure time. Commitment refers to the extent to which an individual invests in
conventionality or the conventions of society (e.g., education, career, family) and their
aspirations and importance of their reputation. Belief is defined as a respect for authorities, an
internalization of social norms, and an absence of neutralizations. Collectively, these elements
comprise Hirschi’s social bond and predict the likelihood of deviation from convention.

The causal link between social control and drug use is hypothesized in much the same manner as
the mechanism underlying the former and crime: those who are more attached, involved, and
committed will be less likely to use drugs (or commit any crime), while those lacking strong
bonds will be more likely to use drugs. Individuals with a greater number of and stronger
attachments to family, friends, and community will be less likely to use drugs because they
have more to lose. Those who are less involved in conventional activities will also be more
likely to use drugs, partially because they will have more time to do so. Involvement is a key
component for juvenile delinquency in particular, because youth who are not occupied during
nonschool hours or who are unsupervised will be more likely to use drugs or engage other forms
of delinquency. The concept of commitment centers on embrace of society’s norms and concerns
for one’s reputation; as a result, those with greater commitment to conventionality are less likely
to use drugs because they are concerned about reputation and their place in the conventional
order. Finally, those who have internalized the normative standards of society will also be less
likely to engage in drug use or any behavior contrary to these behavioral prescripts. As with most
other sociological theories, the social bond’s effect on drug use is relative, and not absolute,
which is to say those with stronger bonds are less likely to use drugs overall, while those with
weak bonds will be more likely. However, this does not mean that those with strong bonds
will abstain from using drugs, while those with weak bonds will necessarily use. And while
attachment and commitment to conventional relationships and institutions may indeed impede
drug use, attachment to unconventional, illegitimate, or delinquent relationships and
institutions may increase the likelihood of use.

STRAIN THEORY:

Similar to control perspectives, strain theories enjoy a long history in the sociology of crime and
deviance. Strain theories, some-times referred to as anomie theories, argue that deviant
behaviors, including crime and drug use, are the result of some sort of societal or individual-level
dysregulation that affects human behavior. Durkheim applied the concept of anomie/strain to
suicide in the late 19th century, and Merton used strain as an explanation for crime in the early
20th century. Both of these early explanations for deviance were macro-level functionalist in
their orientation in that they were attempting to explain how strain impacts rates of suicide
and crime. The most recent version of strain theory, Agnew’s (1992) general strain theory
(GST) approaches the topic differently, instead focusing on individual-level motivations for
crime and deviance. Both Merton’s anomie/strain and Agnew’s GST are discussed relative to
drug use below. Strain theory, in both of its major forms, contends that deviance, including drug
use, is the result of negative stimuli that places stress on individuals or certain segments of
society. The source of this strain, however, varies by theory. Merton’s theory argues that strain
arises from the discrepancy between the goals (values) and means (norms) legitimized by
modern American society. The source of this discrepancy, according to Merton, is the economic
system of capitalism that creates a situation wherein social inequality exists. Those who find
themselves in the unfortunate position of being at the bottom of this economic system are faced
with a quandary because they share in the legitimized goals of American society, which
emphasize financial success and material acquisition, but lack the means to effectively realize
these goals. According to anomie/strain theory, those faced with such a challenge will respond to
this discrepancy through one of several modes of adaptation. Merton offered five distinct models
of adaptation, and all center around the concepts of goals and means. Most people, when faced
with the understanding of society’s legitimized goals and means, will confirm to these normative
standards of behavior. These individuals accept the socially prescribed goals and means
and, as a result, are unlikely to commit crime. Merton’s second mode of adaptation,
innovation, is defined as an acceptance of goals and rejection of means, a combination that
results in criminal offending. These crimes are typically those that provide some sort of financial
or economic benefit such as drug dealing, property crime, and fraudulent activities resulting in
pecuniary gain. Note that innovation will not necessarily result in crimes such as the use of
drugs. prescribed goals and means and, as a result, are unlikely to commit crime.
Merton’s second mode of adaptation, innovation, is defined as an acceptance of goals and
rejection of means, a combination that results in criminal offending. These crimes are typically
those that provide some sort of financial or economic benefit such as drug dealing, property
crime, and fraudulent activities resulting in pecuniary gain. Note that innovation will not
necessarily result in crimes such as the use of drugs.Ritualism, the third mode of adaptation, is
described as a rejection of goals and acceptance of means, while retreatism is defined as a
rejection of both goals and means. The last mode of adaptation, rebellion, was defined as a
combination of rejection of societal goals and means and a substitution of other goals and means.
Both retreatism and rebellion have special significance for drug use in that they are best
equipped to explain such behavior. Those who have retreated from society, who have no
interest in either society’s goals or means because they cannot or do not wish to compete, are
more likely to use drugs because it enables them to retreat further into the shadows of society.
Indeed, one of the major costs associated with drug use is the impact its chronic use can have on
other aspects of an individual’s life. If that individual has already given up on life, then this cost
becomes immaterial to the calculation. The concept of retreatism was expanded on in the 1960s
by Cloward and Ohlin (1960) in differential opportunity theory, which was conceived as an
extension of Merton’s illegitimate opportunity structure construct. Cloward and Ohlin presented
a typology of ideal types of juvenile gangs, one of which was the retreatist gang. These
delinquents were seen as double failures that could compete in neither the legitimate nor the
illegitimate opportunity structure and, as a result, retreated from society into a world of drug use,
abuse, and addiction. For this group, social interaction was limited to other drug using adults
who were in a position to teach the ways of life as an addict. Similarly, rebellion can also
explain drug use in that its adherents are predisposed to challenge the conventional societal
order. The prohibition of drug use is a cornerstone of modern American criminal justice (i.e., the
“War on Drugs”) and the violation of this norm, along with its symbolic representation of
the 1960s counter-culture, is a readymade opportunity for rebellion, particularly for youth. For
those who value rebellion against conventionality, drug use is an opportunity to engage in
behavior that has both actual and symbolic value. The more recent of the strain explanations for
crime, general strain theory, emphasizes a different source of strain than does Merton’s version.
GST presents strain as the result of one (or more) of the following three conditions: (1) removal
of positive stimuli, (2) introduction of negative stimuli, or (3) failure to achieve positively
valued goals. Any of these will produce strain that in turn will cause crime or deviant
behavior. The general strain perspective is particularly useful for understanding drug use and
abuse and is often utilized in studies of both licit (alcohol, tobacco) and illicit (marijuana,
cocaine) drugs. In practice, treating those with alcohol and drug addiction requires an explicit
focus on “triggering mechanisms,” stimuli that occur in the addict’s environment that trigger or
cause the use of substances.

CONFLICT THEORY:

Whereas most of the theories reviewed in this chapter observe the role of socioeconomic
stratification in shaping environment, culture, and social inter-action, conflict perspectives
illustrate how by-products of inequality such as exploitation, shared alienation, and
frustration manifest as social problems. Rooted in Marxist heritage (1978), this perspective
contends that social order does not reflect the consensus model of society suggested by the
structural-functionalist framework but that social institutions, including the criminal justice
system, are defined by and attentive to uneven distribution of power and resources throughout
society. The emergence of critical criminology in the United States during the late 1960s and
1970s transpired during a period of great social unrest and change. The civil rights movement,
the Vietnam War, and liberalization of the popular culture (i.e., the sexual revolution,
feminism, and unprecedented recreational drug use) reflected widespread disenchantment
with established traditions and the status quo. Challenges to authority were met with
intensified social control responses, including the targeting of drug offenders whose use
signaled defiance and challenge to authority. If anything, official efforts to abolish marijuana
only heightened the symbolic significance of use and the intangible rewards of counter-
culture identification. Though critical sociologists led the charge in disseminating the origins and
discriminatory nature of drug policy through structural Marxist concepts, most criminological
research focused on property and violent crimes committed by the lower class. Such focus serves
to deflect attention away from drug legislation and selective enforcement practices
disproportionately affecting the poor and racial minorities. To many, criminologists were
simultaneously denouncing and contributing to the problem.

CONCLUSION:

It is well established finding that most of the adolescents were highly proned to addiction of
drugs and have discussed various theories regarding the addiction of drugs, how people are
addicting to drugs and which factors lead them for addiction etc. Drugs were also used in ancient
times but now the users of medicines have changed the methods of drug misuse and
consumption. In the days before, people used alcohol addiction, but now many dangerous drugs
such as cocaine, marijuana, hashish are easily available in society. Once addicted to drugs it is
difficult to get rid of it and if the addicted person does not get medicines then he commits a
crime. drugs, gamble, have children out of wedlock, and engage in illicit sex”