The Connection between Drugs and Youth Crime - Essay Example

The Connection between Drugs and Youth Crime: An In-Depth Analysis The relationship between drugs and youth crime has been a topic of interest all throughout the years. A number of studies have attempted to discuss how drugs and youth crime affect each other, however, results were sometimes vague and misleading. Thus this study attempts to discuss in a sociological context why drugs lead to youth crime. This paper attempted to do this by first, defining drug abuse, then talking about the reasons why people succumb to this vice and later on, establishing the nature of the relationship between crime and drug abuse. Furthermore, the extent of these crimes, their consequences, and various measures which were used to deal with them has also been discussed. The paper also dwelt on the issue of legalizing some of these drugs. On a final note, this paper has presented conclusions and recommendations to promote a drug free and a crime-free society. CHAPTER I Introduction A. Background of the Study Drugs are a threat to today’s society. Because of this fact, there are numerous studies which have attempted to establish a causative relationship between drugs and crime. Indeed, there is a steady relationship between drug abuse and the growing crime rate. This is evident as we often hear about sporadic violence occurring in those neighbourhoods of our cities which have acquired a reputation for the being drug joints of the city. There is a relationship between youths getting attracted to drugs and eventually towards crime (Bullock and Tilley 2002). Researchers have always tried to find out the answer to various questions relating to this menace. However, much of their theories remain unknown to the public. This may be the reason why drug abuse as a causative agent to youth crime has remained one of the prevailing problems of this modern world. Thus this paper aims to discuss the factors why drug abuse leads to the increasing rate of youth crime all over the country. Specifically it attempts to discuss the rate of drug abuse here in UK, the nature of drugs used in substance abuse and how they affect a person’s level of functioning, mental and emotional state; socioeconomic problems which link youth crime and substance abuse together and solutions and recommendations which can help lessen substance abuse and youth crime rates. Broadly, the term “drug” is used to describe “any substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily function.” (WHO, 1969). Drugs are used to treat diseases, but there is a subset of drugs being termed as recreational drugs, which are chemical substances that affect the central nervous system, such as opioids or hallucinogens( American Heritage Dictionary, 2007). Substance abuse, on the other hand, refers to “the overindulgence in and dependence of a drug or other chemical leading to effects that are detrimental to the individuals physical and mental health, or the welfare of others.” (Mosbys Medical, Nursing, & Allied Health Dictionary, 1998). This disorder is characterized by a pattern of continued pathological use of a medication, non-medically indicated drug or toxin, which later on results to repeated adverse social consequences which are related to drug use, such as failure to meet work, family, or school obligations, interpersonal conflicts, or legal problems. (Barett, 2006) Substance abuse may lead to addiction or substance dependence. Both abuse and dependence are distinct from addiction which involves a compulsion to continue using the substance despite the negative consequences, and may or may not involve chemical dependency. Dependence almost always implies abuse, but abuse frequently occurs without dependence, particularly when an individual first begins to abuse a substance. Dependence involves physiological processes while substance abuse reflects a complex interaction between the individual, the abused substance and society. (Barett, 2006) B. The UK Situation: Drug Use among the Youth For us to understand the relationship between youth crime and drugs, let us first examine the present incidence of drug use among UK’s youths. It was found out by Boreham and Blenkinsop in 2004 that among school pupils aged 11 to 15, the prevalence of taking drugs was stable between 2001 and 2003. It was found out in their survey that 42% have been offered drugs. It was found out that the most commonly offered drug was cannabis (27%), followed by volatile substances (19%), poppers (12%), magic mushrooms (10%), crack (9%), cocaine (9%) and heroin (7%). In another survey, Balding (2005) had found out that young people aged 11 to 15 are more likely to have been offered drugs and have taken drugs. In the 16- to 24-year-old age group, the 2003/2004 British Crime Survey (Chivite- Matthews et al., 2005) has observed that that around 2.8 million people in England and Wales have used illicit drugs and 0.5 million has used a Class A drug in the past year. C. Aims of the Research The aim of this paper is to establish the relationship between illicit drug use and crime among young people. It specifically aims to do the following: 1. Study and review the nature of substances most commonly used in illicit drug abuse. 2. Discuss predictive risk factors associated with illicit drug abuse and make a review to establish strength of evidence. 3. Associate substance abuse and youth crime and make a review of literature in relation to this fact 4. Make conclusions and recommendations based on the data presented. CHAPTER II Literature Review: A. Drugs in Illicit Substance Abuse Abused drugs generally fall within the following categories: (Pham-Canter, 2001) 1. Cannabis The street names of cannabis include marijuana, hashish, grass and others. Its use leads to mood swings, slowing down of reflexes and thinking process, increased appetite and the creation of delusions and hallucinations. 2. Inhalants Drugs in this category include aerosols such as Nitrous Oxide and solvents such as Amyl Nitrate and Butyl Nitrate. Use of these inhalants result in slurred speech, impaired hearing and eye vision and often leads to nausea and vomiting 3. Depressants Drugs in this category include sleeping pills and tranquilizers. Their effects include drowsiness and confusion, impaired body coordination and a fall in pulse rate and respiration. 4. Stimulants The products in this category include Amphetamine, Ritalin, Methamphetamine and MDMA. They lead to excitability, tremors and insomnia among users. 5. Hallucinogens Drugs included in this category include LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide), MDA (methylenedioxyamphetimine), and PCP (phencyclidine). These drugs cause a dazed state, with lots of excitement and momentary euphoria, accompanied by an increase in pulse rate, hallucinations and a feeling of paranoia. 6. Opioids These include heroine and morphine. These drugs lead to lethargy and result in nausea, drowsiness and slow breathing. 7. Cocaine and crack cocaine This kind of drugs results in a condition when the user feels excitability and anxiety. Using drugs like cannabis leads to crime among youths. These youths are addicted towards these drugs and they enjoy them as it helps them to stay awake and part. (Hartjen, 2008; Tonri, 1991). Four stages of drug taking are discussed below. The seriousness of drug addiction in a particular user can be found out by determining in which of the above mentioned four stages he belongs to. These stages are as follows: (Crime Prevention, 2009) 1. Experimental Use In this case people try it out of curiosity. At this stage the user is easily able to distance himself from the drug use if he so wishes. 2. Occasional Use In this stage, drugs are used occasionally, possibly during stressful times or for recreational purposes. A person even in this stage can leave his drug habit if he wishes to do so. 3. Regular use In this stage the drugs have become a part and parcel of the user’s life. Here he has to take them daily and from then on it becomes very difficult for drug users to leave the habit. 4. Dependent use In this stage, the use of drugs is not only frequent but is done in large quantities. The user feels withdrawal symptoms if he tries to stay away form the drug, so he continues to use it . It is generally believed that consumption of alcohol and drugs leads to crimes because of the “psychopharmacological properties” of these drugs. “The psychopharmacological model proposes that the effects of intoxication (including disinhibition, cognitive-perceptual distortions, attention deficits, bad judgment, and neurochemical changes) cause extremely violent behaviour among the criminals” (White and Gorman, 2000, p.170). Once a person gets addicted to these drugs then he cannot do without them. He gets a strong urge to avail these drugs at any costs. This leads to drug related violence. Also, various behavioural symptoms can become a major reason for drug related crimes, such as withdrawal symptoms, sleep deprivation and nutritional deficiencies. Also, “impairment of neuropsychological functioning or enhancement of psychopathologic personality disorders” (White and Gorman, 2000, p. 170) can sometimes lead to violent crimes. Quite a few explanatory models have been developed for defining the relation between drugs and crimes. Some theories suggest that drugs lead to crime, whereas others think that it is actually the crime which leads to drug abuse; still some think that both drugs and crimes are the products of many other variables having similar causes. Each of these models are valid and may vary from person to person or may even vary in the same person from time to time. Newcombe (2009) have described five phases of Episode Drug-Taking and Criminal Behavior, which are summarized in the table below:   DRUGS CRIME INTENTION Want (fun); Craving Want (need); Impulse PRECONDITIONS Knowledge & access Knowledge & opportunity PERFORMANCE Prepare and ingest Set up & carry out SHORT-TERM EFFECTS Intoxication Gain; Satisfaction AFTER-EFFECTS Come-down; Harms Power/Wealth; Punishment CHAPTER III Methodology This is a descriptive study which utilized various qualitative data from the following sources: 1. Journals in electronic databases which describe quantitative studies 2. Government publications in UK This study was conducted from January 2009 to November 2009 and utilized data from the past 5 years (2005 to 2009). This study has compiled 6 systematic and high quality reviews, 4 individual RCTs, 10 individual non-randomised, experimental/intervention studies, 30 individual non-experimental studies – Longitudinal, cohort, 20 individual non-experimental studies – Cross-sectional, 10 Qualitative studies and 10 Summary review articles and discussions of relevant literature. Based on a review of the abstracts 52 papers were excluded because substance use /abuse was not measured as a study outcome, drugs were considered as risk factors for other later outcomes, and childhood predictors of adult drug use were examined. After exclusion of these categories, there were 100 potential papers. The results of the searches were then recorded and analyzed. This study used four categories of predictive risk factors for drug abuse. These categories are: A: Personal [biological, psychological]; B: Personal [behavioural, attitudinal]; Interpersonal relationships; and D: Structural [environmental, economic]. Whereas previous reviews have been descriptive, the aim of this review is to quantify the evidence in as unbiased a manner as possible. At the same time, the review also aims to analyse qualitative research and consider how findings from this literature complement the quantitative literature CHAPTER IV Discussion of Findings: A. Risk Factors for Drug Abuse among the Youth Data taken from the qualitative studies revealed the drugs most commonly used. Cannabis was used in the majority of cases (39%), followed by Class A drugs (10%), and amphetamines/ecstasy (1%). In the remaining analyses (50%), the outcome was a general measure of drug use, with higher scores indicating higher levels of drug use. The risk factor categories found in the studies were: A. Personal factors – Biological, psychological and demographic (27%). B. Personal factors – Behavioural or attitudinal (24%). C. Interpersonal relationships (33%). D. Structural –environmental and economic (16%). Personal factors such as biological, psychological and demographic are factors that are either difficult or impossible to change (Dillon et al., 2006). Gender was a significant predictor of drug use in four studies (Hofler et al., 1999; Johnson et al., 1995; von Sydow et al., 2002; Young et al., 2002). Ilomaki et al., 2004 did not find a significant association between gender and level of drug use. Four studies found that age was a predictor of cannabis use or overall level of drug use (Young et al., 2002; Beckett et al., 2004; Ljubotina et al., 2004; Howard and Jenson, 1999). A study by Turner (2003) found that lifetime cumulative exposure to distant, as well as to more recent, adversity predicts risk of subsequent drug dependence. However, the study also reported that some types of trauma were not significant after controlling for other factors. Studies of the impact of lifetime cumulative adversity on substance abuse problems are very rare. Lynskey et al. (2002) reported that childhood sexual trauma was a risk factor for ecstasy but not for crack cocaine. Turner and Lloyd (2003) reported significant associations with emotional abuse by caretakers and physical abuse by partner or spouse. Four studies (Howard and Jenson, 1999; Hoffman and Cerbone, 2002; Vega et al., 1999; Newcomb et al., 1986) reported that low self-esteem was associated with drug use. In the latter study ten risk factors were studied and, of these, self esteem had the lowest correlation with drug use. One study (Ljubotina et al., 2004) reported that hedonism was associated with level of cannabis use. In relation to depression and anxiety, Hoffman and Cerbone (2002) and Hofler et al. (1999) reported associations, while Ilomaki et al. (2004) did not. Turner (2003) reported significant associations, but these became non-significant after controlling for other factors. A range of psychological factors was associated with drug use, including suicidality (Howard and Jenson, 1999; Vega et al., 1993) and mental health problems (Hofler et al., 1999). For phobias, Ilomaki et al. (2004) found that “over one-half of the adolescents with phobic disorders had developed substance dependence within three years after the onset of phobia”. However, other studies did not report significant psychological associations (for example with regards to mental health problems and sensation seeking Lynskey et al. (2002) reported that 45 per cent of the variance in liability to cannabis dependence could be accounted for by genetic factors, 20 per cent by shared environmental factors and 35 per cent by non-shared environmental factors. Behavioural or attitudinal factors are personal factors that are easier to change by policy or life changes Four studies reported significant associations (Hofler et al., 1999; von Sydow et al.,2002 ; Howard and Jenson, 1999; Johnson et al., 1995 [19.119]) while two did not (Beckett et al., 2004; Newcomb et al., 1986). Von Sydow et al. (2002) studied predictors of cannabis use vs. abuse and concluded that as well as “factors such as peer group pressure, drug availability, and low self-esteem, findings suggest that family history and prior experiences with legal drugs play a significant role in the initiation of cannabis consumption and the transition to cannabis use disorders in adolescents and young adults”. Several studies reported that behavioural problems are significantly associated with drug use (Brook et al., 2002); resolving conflict through physical aggression (Unger et al., 2003); and early sexual involvement (Hallfors et al., 2002). Other studies did not find evidence of association (e.g. resolving conflict through non-physical aggression or non-aggression (Unger et al., 2003), deviance (Newcomb et al., 1986). Unger et al. (2003) found that “adolescents, who respond to interpersonal conflicts in an aggressive manner, whether physical or verbal/psychological, may be at increased risk for substance use, while non-aggressive conflict management skills may be protective”. Interpersonal relationships include relationships with, and characteristics of, family, friends and peers. One study (Boyle et al., 2001) reported that the dominant influence appears to be from older to younger siblings rather than from parents to offspring. Several studies reported family interactions to be associated with drug use. Examples include low parental discipline (King and Chassin, 2004), family cohesion (Hoffman and Cerbone, 2002) and parental monitoring (Case and Haines, 2003). Structural – environmental and economic issues are either totally or largely outside of the individual’s control (Dillon et al., 2006). Some studies reported associations between lower socio-economic status (SES) and level of drug use [Reinherz et al., 2000; Poulton et al., 2002; Hofler et al., 1999). However, other studies did not find associations (Poulton et al., 2002; Olsson et al., 2003). Turner and Lloyd (2003) reported that “lifetime rates of drug dependence disorder did not vary significantly by socio-economic group”. Cope (2000) studied young offenders and reported that “drugs played a role in the management of time and was one of a number of strategies inmates developed to cope with their sentences”. Anderson (1994) found that young female offenders reported accounts of trajectories of drug use that typically began with problems the young women were unable to solve leading to escape through substance use, then escalation of trouble and problems and detention, with the participants repeatedly asking for "someone to listen" to problems early on. B. Relationship of Youth Crime with Drug Abuse The UK Audit Commission’s report, ‘Misspent Youth’ (1996) noted that of the 600 young people studied who were involved in crime, 15% were classed as having a drug or alcohol problem, and of the persistent offenders the figure rose to 37%. There is also a growing body of research that establishes links between offending behaviour and drug taking by young people. Jamieson, Mclvor and Murray’s (1999) study of offending by young people in two Scottish towns found a strong link between young people’s use of drugs and offending – mainly thefts, housebreakings and some physical assaults. In relation to illegal drugs, research on the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Methodology (ADAM) in Scotland shows very high levels of illegal drug use and criminal activity where 71% of urine samples tested positive: 52% tested positive for cannabis, 33% for Benzodiazepines, 31% for opiates, 12% for methadone, and 3% for cocaine; 26% of male and 51% of female arrestees tested positive for opiates; the level of opiate use was found to be higher in Scotland than in any of the 35 areas covered by the US ADAM programme. Young offenders have also been found to have higher rates of drug use and misuse in comparison with non-offending young people. BCS and SCS figures indicate that 50% of those under 20 have used some kind of illegal drug. However, research shows that, of young people on supervision orders 70% reported having taken some form of illegal substance (NACRO, 2000) and 95% of young people held in young offenders’ institutions in Scotland said they had taken illegal drugs (SPS, 2000). C. Discussion Casual factors which might be responsible for drug taking and resultant crimes are poverty and unemployment where in people have ample to time to fall for these vices and since they have no money to satisfy their needs, they eventually resort to criminal activities. It has also been found that in most of the general drug users, initiation to crime was before they got into the habit of drug use. People living below poverty line are more prone to drug abuse as they live in much more tough and adverse conditions than their well to do counterparts. Drugs help them to alleviate their economic and mental pain at least momentarily. Peddling in drugs provides them with extra source of income which becomes an attractive proposition for them. The childhood problems which have the potential of turning children into future drug users are manifold; this includes failure in schools, inability to mix with the peer groups, being economically and socially disadvantaged. Also presence of drug users in the family and other such related problems leads to problems of drug abuse among the children. (Bennet, 2000; MacKenzie, and Uchida 1994) The nexus of the twin devils of drug and crimes effect on our society has incredible proportions. The negative prospects of these crimes have affected our society very badly. Due to drug abuse and its relations with crime, several families have broken up. In many cases the sole bread earning member of the families have landed behind bars on the charges of drug abuse or peddling nor they have been rendered inactive due to heavy drug abuse. Many youngsters who might have started drug use out of anxiety now find themselves in the rehabilitation centres dealing with their drug issues. Cost of dealing with this menace is also very high and the tax payers of the country are forced to bear such cost. These costs range from the rehabilitation of the victims to the security measures taken by the government to tackle such crimes. Using of hypodermic needles more than once has increased the chances of the drug users getting AIDS or other such deadly diseases. All these forms of crimes which are mentioned above do not only affect the drug dealers and the users, instead it has a large spillover effect on other members of the society. Many a time’s violent drug crimes involve the whole of such neighborhood where drug use and peddling is rampant. Drug abuse also accounts for drawing of a major amount of state resources to mitigate such crimes and to rehabilitate the victims. These resources otherwise could have been used for other fruitful purposes. Its big menace is that it turns ordinary people into hardcore criminals. Thus when people get attracted towards drug abuse, they tend to perform both small and big crimes so as to be able to support their habit. Soon they find themselves being convicted and put behind bars. Here they meet several habitual offenders and other drug users like them and get further drawn into this habit. Once they come out of the jails, the social stigma attached to them makes them difficult to survive on their own. Sloly they get sucked into the criminal world as that remains the only measure through which they tend to earn for their survival and carrying on with their drug use. CHAPTER V Conclusions and Recommendations. Although it still remains unclear that how grave is the relation between drug abuse and crime, it can still be safely stated that many of the crimes are either committed under the influence of such drugs or they are being committed to get the money for purchasing the drugs so that the drug user is able to satisfy his desire for drugs. Hence if drug use can be reduced the crime rates will certainly go down. A four pillar framework has been used very successfully in many countries around the world. These four pillars consist of prevention, treatment, enforcement and harm reduction to act in a coordinated manner to deal with the vice of drug abuse. Prevention educates people who have yet not fallen into the drug trap about the negative effects of drug use and tells people what measures can be taken to keep away from its influence. Treatment is for those who have already become victims of drug abuse. These people are provided treatment in the drug rehabilitation shelters and are given psychological and medical treatment so that they can overcome the use of drugs. Enforcement by the law enforcement agencies should be done to stem the functioning of the drug distribution cartels and clean up such neighbourhoods which have come into effect by drug peddling activities. Harm reduction decreases all the possible harms falling on the society due to drug habits of few people. Some people may not be able to kick this habit immediately; hence measures have to be taken to reduce their harmful effects on the society as a whole. Some other measures suggested are as follows: 1. A coordinated approach involving business men, students, government agencies and elected leaders 2. Reducing the delays in admission in hospitals for drug related treatment. 3. 24/7 availability of treatment and services to reduce harmful effects; 4. Long term funding initiatives for drug related issues. 5. Greater involvement of police and other crime enforcement agencies to control such activities 6. More stringent and prolific sentences for the members of the organized drug cartels In summary, whet we really need in the reduction of youth crime and illicit drug abuse among them is cooperation between different stake holders of the society in controlling this menace. We should improve public health by effective targeting of drug issues and their eventual prevention. We should improve the overall socio economic life of people by keeping them free from the drug menace. We should restore public order by reducing crimes related to drugs and effectively targeting the perpetrators of such crimes. CHAPTER VI APPENDICES A. References used in Literature Review 1. Wilens, T. E., Faraone, S. V., Biederman, J. et al. (2003) Does stimulant therapy of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder beget later substance abuse? A meta-analytic review of the literature. Pediatrics, 111, 179-185. 2. Hallfors, D., Vevea, J. L., Iritani, B. et al. (2002) Truancy, grade point average, and sexual activity: A meta-analysis of risk indicators for youth substance use. Journal of School Health, 72, 205-211. 3. Morgan, M., Hibell, B., Andersson, B. et al. (1999) The ESPAD study: Implications for prevention. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 6, 243-256. 4. Lloyd, C. (1998) Risk factors for problem drug use: Identifying vulnerable groups. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 5,. 217-232. 5. Denton, R. E. and Kampfe, C. M. (1994) The relationship between family variables and adolescent substance abuse: A literature review. Adolescence, 29, 475-495. 6. Weinberg, N. Z., Rahdert, E., Colliver, J. D. et al. (1998) Adolescent substance abuse: A review of the past 10 years. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37, 252-261. Category 3: Individual RCTs 7. Sussman, S., Sun, P., McCuller, W. J. et al. (2003) Project towards no drug abuse: Two year outcomes of a trial that compares health educator delivery to self-instruction. Preventive Medicine, 37, 155-162. 8. Stanton, B., Cole, M., Galbraith, J. et al. (2004) Randomized trial of a parent intervention: Parents can make a difference in long-term adolescent risk behaviors, perceptions, and knowledge. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 158, 947-955. 9. Tolan, P., Gorman-Smith, D. and Henry, D. (2004) Supporting families in a high-risk setting: Proximal effects of the SAFEChildren preventive intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 855-869. 10. Ellickson, P. L., Bell, R. M. and McGuigan, K. (1993) Preventing adolescent drug use: Long-term results of a junior high program. American Journal of Public Health, 83, 856-861. 11. Schinke, S. P., Di Noia, J. and Glassman, J. R. (2004) Computer-mediated intervention to prevent drug abuse and violence among high-risk youth. Addictive Behaviors, 29, 225-229. 12. King, K. M. and Chassin, L. (2004) Mediating and moderated effects of adolescent behavioural undercontrol and parenting in the prediction of drug use disorders in emerging adulthood. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 239-249. 13. Mannuzza, S., Klein, R. and Moulton, J. (2003) Does stimulant treatment place children at risk for adult substance abuse? A controlled, prospective follow-up study. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 13, 273-282. 14. Case, S. and Haines, K. (2003) Promoting prevention: Preventing youth drug use in Swansea, UK, by targeting risk and protective factors. Journal of Substance Use, 8, 243-251. 15. Ellickson, P. L., Bell, R. M. and Harrison, E. R. (1993) Changing adolescent propensities to use drugs: Results from project ALERT. Health Education Quarterly, 20, 227-242. 16. Fischer, M. and Barkley, R. A. (2003) Childhood stimulant treatment and risk for later substance abuse. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 64, 19-23. 17. Ilomaki, R., Hakko, H., Timonen, M. et al. (2004) Temporal relationship between the age of onset of phobic disorders and development of substance dependence in adolescent psychiatric patients. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 75, 327-330. 18. Reinherz, H. Z., Giacconia, R. M., Carmola Hauf, A. M. et al. (2000) General and specific childhood risk factors for depression and drug disorders by early adulthood. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 223-231. 19. Poulton, R., Caspi, A., Milne, B. J. et al. (2002) Association between children’s experience of socio-economic disadvantage and adult health: A life-course study. Lancet, 360, 1640- 1645. 20. Rashad, I. and Kaestner, R. (2004) Teenage sex, drugs and alcohol use: Problems identifying the cause of risky behaviors. Journal of Health Economics, 23, 493-503. 21. Johnson, E. O., Schntz, C. G., Anthony, J. C. et al. (1995) Inhalants to heroin: A prospective analysis from adolescence to adulthood. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 40, 159- 164. 22. Howard, M. O. and Jenson, J. M. (1999) Inhalant use among antisocial youth: Prevalence and correlates. Addictive Behaviors, 24, 59-74. 23. Brook, D., Brook, J., Rosen, Z. et al. (2002) Correlates of marijuana use in Colombian adolescents: A focus on the impact of the ecological/cultural domain. Journal of Adolescent Health, 31, 286-298. 24. Merikangas, K. and Avenevoli, S. (2000) Implications of genetic epidemiology for the prevention of substance use disorders. Addictive Behaviors, 25, 807-820. 25. Hoffmann, J. and Cerbone, F. (2002) Parental substance use disorder and the risk of adolescent drug abuse: An event history analysis. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 66, 255-264. 26. Lynskey, M., Heath, A. C., Nelson, A. C. et al. (2002) Genetic and environmental contributions to cannabis dependence in a national young adult twin sample. Psychological Medicine, 32, 195-207. 27. von Sydow, K., Lieb, R., Pfister, H. et al. (2002) What predicts incident use of cannabis and progression to abuse and dependence? A 4-year prospective examination of risk factors in a community sample of adolescents and young adults. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 68, 49-64. 28. Tarter, R., Kirisci, L., Mezzich, A. et al. (2003) Neurobehavioral disinhibition in childhood predicts early age at onset of substance use disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 1078-1085 29. Newcomb, M. D., Maddahian, E. and Bentler, P. M. (1986) Risk factors for drug use among adolescents: Concurrent and longitudinal analyses. American Journal of Public Health, 76, 525-531. 30. Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard, M., Lune, L. S. V., et al. (2004) Context and cognitions: Environmental risk, social influence, and adolescent substance use. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1048-1061. 31. Pudney, S. (2003) The road to ruin? Sequences of initiation to drugs and crime in Britain. Economic Journal, 113, C182-C198. 32. Beitchman, J. H., Wilson, B., Douglas, L., et al. (2001) Substance use disorders in young adults with and without LD: Predictive and concurrent relationships. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 317-332. 33. Denham Wright, J. and Pearl, L. (2000) Experience and knowledge of young people regarding illicit drug use 1969-99. Addiction, 95, 1225-1235. 34. Biederman, J., Wilens, T., Mick, E. et al. (1997) Is ADHD a risk factor for psychoactive substance use disorders? Findings from a four-year prospective follow-up study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 21-30. 35. Hofler, M., Lieb, R., Perkonigg, A. et al. (1999) Covariates of cannabis use progression in a representative population sample of adolescents: A prospective examination of vulnerability and risk factors. Addiction, 94, 1679-1694. 36. Aytaclar, S., Erkiran, M., Kirisci, L. et al. (2003) Substance abuse and associated psychosocial risk factors among Turkish male adolescents. Addictive Behaviors, 28, 1419 37. Vanyukov, M. M., Kirisci, L., Tarter, R. E. et al. (2003) Liability to substance use disorders:A measurement approach. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 27, 517-526. 38. Adams, C. D., Perkins, K. C., Lumley, V., et al (2003) Validation of the Perkins Adolescent Risk Screen (PARS). Journal of Adolescent Health, 33, 462-470. 39. Latimer, W. W., Newcomb, M., Winters, K. C. et al. (2000) Adolescent substance abuse treatment outcome: The role of substance abuse problem severity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 684-696. 40. Li, C., Pentz, M. A. and Chou, C-P. (2002) Parental substance use as a modifier of adolescent substance use risk. Addiction, 97, 1537-1550. 41. Hoffmann, J. P. and Su, S. S. (1998) Parental substance use disorder, mediating variables and adolescent drug use: A non-recursive model. Addiction, 93, 1351-1364. 42. Bachman, J. G., Johnston, L. D. and Malley, P. M. (1990) Explaining the recent decline in cocaine use among young adults: Further evidence that perceived risks and disapproval lead to reduced drug use. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 31, 173-184. 43. Yang, M. S., Yang, M. J., Lin, Y. H. et al. (1998) Prevalence and related risk factors of licit and illicit substance use by adolescent students in southern Taiwan. Public Health, 112, 347-352. 44. Stronski, S. M., Ireland, M., Michaud, P. et al. (2000) Protective correlates of stages in adolescent substance use: A Swiss national study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 26, 420-427. 45. Farrell, A. D., Kung, E. M., White, K. S. et al. (2000) The structure of self-reported aggression, drug use, and delinquent behaviors during early adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 282-292. 46. Brook, J. S., Brook, D. W., de la Rosa, M. et al. (2001) Adolescent illegal drug use: The impact of personality, family, and environmental factors. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 24, 47. Unger, J., Sussman, S. and Dent, C. (2003) Interpersonal conflict tactics and substance use among high-risk adolescents. Addictive Behaviors, 28, 979-987. 48. Ljubotina, D., Galic, J. and Jukic, V. (2004) Prevalence and risk factors of substance use among urban adolescents: Questionnaire study. Croatian Medical Journal, 45, 88-98. 49. Boyle, M. H., Sanford, M., Szatmari, P. et al. (2001) Familial influences on substance misuse by adolescents and young adults. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 92, 206-209. 50. Turner, R. and Lloyd, D. (2003) Cumulative adversity and drug dependence in young adults: Racial/ethnic contrasts. Addiction, 98, 305-315. 51. Vega, W. A., Zimmerman, R. S., Warheit, G. J. et al. (1993) Risk factors for early adolescent drug use in four ethnic and racial groups. American Journal of Public Health, 83, 185-189. 52. Friedman, A. S. and Glassman, K. (2000) Family risk factors versus peer risk factors for drug abuse: A longitudinal study of an African American urban community sample. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 18, 267-275. 53. McCambridge, J. and Strang, J. (2004) Drug problems – what problems? Concurrent predictors of selected types of drug problems in a London community sample of young people who use drugs. Addiction Research and Theory, 12, 55-66. 54. Beckett, H., Heap, J., McArdle, P. et al. (2004) Understanding problem drug use among young people accessing drug services: A multivariate approach using statistical modelling techniques (Home Office Online Report 15/04). At http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1504.pdf; accessed 08/02/2007, 55. Young, S. E., Corley, R. P., Stallings, M. C. et al. (2002) Substance use, abuse and dependence in adolescence: Prevalence, symptom profiles and correlates. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 68, 309-322. 56. Manning, V., Best, D., Rawaf, S. et al. (2001) Drug use in adolescence: The relationship between opportunity, initial use, and continuation of use of four illicit drugs in cohort of 14- to 16-year-olds in South London. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 8, 397-405. 57. Olsson, C. A., Coffey, C., Toumbourou, J. W., et al. (2003) Family risk factors for cannabis use: A population-based survey of Australian secondary school students. Drug and Alcohol Review, 22, 143-152. 58. Galt, M. (1997) Illicit drug availability in rural areas and attitudes toward their use: Young people talking. Health Education Journal, 56, 17-34. 59. Bell, R., Paris, S., Cunningham-Burley, S. et al. (1998) Young men’s use of cannabis: Exploring changes in meaning and context over time. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 5. 60. Boys, A., Marsden, J., Fountain, J. et al. (1999) What influences young people’s use of drugs? A qualitative study of decision-making. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 6, 373-387. 61. Burr, A. (1987) Chasing the dragon. British Journal of Criminology, 27, 333-355. 62. Klee, H. and Reid, P. (1998) Drugs and youth homelessness. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 5, 269-280. 63. Melrose, M. (2000) Fixing It? Young People, Drugs and Disadvantage. Dorset: Russet House Publishing. 64. Maycock, P. (2002) Drug pathways, transitions and decisions: The experiences of young people in an inner-city Dublin community. Contemporary Drug Problems, 29, 117-156. 65. Wagner, F., Diaz, D. B. et al. (2002) Social cohesion, cultural identity, and drug use in Mexican rural communities. Substance Use and Misuse, 37, 715-717. 66. Anderson, N. L. (1994) Resolutions and risk-taking in juvenile detention. Clinical Nursing Research, 3, 297-315. 67. Cope, N. (2000) Drug use in prison: The experience of young offenders. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 7, 355. 68. McKeganey, N., McIntosh, J. and MacDonald, F. (2003) Young people’s experience of illegal drug use in the family. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 10, 169-184. 69. Okamoto, S. K., Hurdle, D. E. and Marsiglia, F. F. (2001) Exploring culturally-based drug resistance strategies used by American Indian adolescents of the southwest. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 47, 45-59. 70. Pearson, G. (2001) Normal drug use: Ethnographic fieldwork among an adult network of recreational drug users in inner London. Substance Use and Misuse, 36, 167-200. 71. Shildrick, T. (2002) Young people, illicit drug use and the question of normalization. Journalof Youth Studies, 5, 35-48. 72. Valdez, A. and Sifaneck, S. J. (2004) Getting high and getting by: Dimensions of drug selling behaviors among American Mexican gang members in south Texas. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41, 82-105. 73. Bailey, S. (2003) Young offenders and mental health. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 16, 581-591. 74. Turner, R. J. (2003) The pursuit of socially modifiable contingencies in mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44, 1-17. 75. Blum, R. W. (1997) Adolescent substance use and abuse. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 151, 805-808. 76. Hawkins, J., Catalano, R. and Arthur, M. (2002) Promoting science-based prevention in communities. Addictive Behaviors, 27, 951-976. 77. Spooner, C. (1999) Causes and correlates of adolescent drug abuse and implications for treatment. Drug and Alcohol Review, 18, 453-475. Other References: 1. Allen, C. (2007) Crime, Drugs and Social Theory, London; Ashgate 2. Balding, J. (2005) Trends: Young People and Illegal Drugs. Attitudes to and experience of illegal drugs 1987–2004. Exeter: Schools Health Education Unit. 3. Barrett AE, Turner RJ (January 2006). "Family structure and substance use problems in adolescence and early adulthood: examining explanations for the relationship". Addiction 101 (1): 109–20. 4. Bennet, T. (2000) Drugs and Crime, Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Great Britain Home Office 5. Bennett, T. and Holloway, K (2004) "Gang Membership, drugs and crime in the UK" British Journal of Criminology, 44, 305-323 6. Boreham, R. and Blenkinsop, S. (2004) Drug use, smoking, and drinking among young people in England in 2003. London, The Stationery Office. (http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/PublicationsStatisticsArticle/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4118153&chk=p9kEpR;accessed08/02/2007). 7. Bullock K. and N. Tilley, (2002) Shootings gangs and violent incidents in Manchester, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit, available at: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/portal/issueareas/perpetrators/perpet_pdf/2002_Bullock_Tilley.pdf (accessed on May 30, 2009) 8. Dembo, R. and Williams, L.E. (1993) Drugs and Crime, NY: University Press of America 9. Goldstein, J. (2003), Drug/Violence Nexus, in, Crime, Bean, P., London; Tayor & Francis 10. Hammersley, R. (2008) Drugs and Crime, London: Polity 11. Hartjen, C.A. (2008) Youth, Crime, and Justice: A Global Inquiry , NJ: Rutgers University Press 12. Mosbys Medical, Nursing, & Allied Health Dictionary.(1998) Substance Abuse . Edition 5. 13. Newcombe, R. (N.D.) THE THEORY & PRACTICE OF DRUG-RELATED CRIME, Available at: http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/102a.html (accessed on May 30, 2009) 14. Pham-Kanter, Genevieve. (2001). "Substance abuse and dependence." The Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine. Second Edition. Jacqueline L. Longe, Ed. 5 vols. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. 15. The American Heritage Science Dictionary. Definition of Drug. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2007. 16. Tonri, M. (1991) Drugs and Crime: Crime and Justice, Chicago: University of Chicago Press 17. White, H.R. and Gorman, D.M. (2000) Dynamics of the Drug Crime Relationship, The Nature of Crime,Criminal Justice, available at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_1/02d.pdf (accessed on May 30, 2009) 18. World Health Organization. (1969). WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence. Sixteenth report. (Technical report series. No. 407).Geneva:World Health Organization. Read More