There is quite a bit of literature on the subject of intoxication (not just alcohol, but other drugs as well) and violence. As I have previously mentioned (and this should not be a surprise to anyone), the violence problem associated with alcohol and drugs is not just because they are illegal, and creates problems associated with trafficking, but because intoxicants reduce inhibitions. People do things when loaded that they would not do the rest of the time. Sometimes, it is cute: karoke. Sometimes it is not.
You can argue that prohibition-induced crimes are the more serious problem. From the standpoint of corruption of the criminal justice system, this is certainly true. Prohibition has the potential (and often does) turn a private tragedy into a public tragedy. But let's not pretend that repealing all drug laws isn't going to increase the number of people who choose to get wasted and do horrible crimes.
Here's a study from Sweden "Substance misuse and violent crime: Swedish population study"
Now, alcohol misuse is more commonly a cause of violent crime than illegal drug misuse in this study, but it appears that this is because alcohol is more commonly a basis for being hospitalized. Compare the r1 column (violent crimes per 1000 persons hospitalized for that intoxication problem) with the r column (violent crimes per 1000 persons in the general population). It is apparent that while alcohol misuse is correlated with an increase in violent crime rates, every other drug is even more strongly correlated--even cannabis, which everyone wants to believe mellows everyone out.
Now, I agree that correlation is not causation. It may be that people inclined to substance abuse are also generally more antisocial. But unless those violent crimes are associated with economic crimes to get drugs, it does appear that my original point is made: intoxication increased violence.
You can argue that prohibition-induced crimes are the more serious problem. From the standpoint of corruption of the criminal justice system, this is certainly true. Prohibition has the potential (and often does) turn a private tragedy into a public tragedy. But let's not pretend that repealing all drug laws isn't going to increase the number of people who choose to get wasted and do horrible crimes.
Alcoholism, alcohol, intoxication and assaultive behavior.
Mayfield, Demmie
Diseases of the Nervous System, Vol 37(5), May 1976, 288-291.
Studied 307 males entering the North Carolina prison system after being convicted of serious assaultive crimes, to determine the role of alcohol intoxication in the crime. The majority of the Ss (80%) were convicted of homicide (1st and 2nd degree murder and manslaughter), and the remainder (20%) had committed a variety of felony assaults. Only 8% were abstainers, and 36% were problem drinkers. The latter often had previous arrests for alcohol offenses (70%) and were also more likely than the other Ss to have previous nonalcoholic criminal records (67%) and previous serious assaults (50%). The problem drinkers were unlikely (37%) to acknowledge the problem, were very unlikely to have received treatment for alcoholism (13%) and almost never voluntarily sought treatment. 58% of the Ss were definitely drinking at the time of the crime, and 40% of the victims were definitely drinking at the time of the assault. Amnesia for the crime was uncommon (13%) among those who were drinking; but of those who did claim amnesia, almost all had been drinking. Alcohol use appeared in most cases to be a significant factor in producing the assaultive behavior. The majority of the Ss who were intoxicated at the time of the crime did not consider that their intoxication was relevant to their behavior.
Patterns of substance abuse and intoxication among murderers.Yarvis, Richard M.
Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law, Vol 22(1), 1994, 133-144.
Examined patterns of substance abuse (SA) and intoxication in relation to homicidal behavior. 100 murderers were given psychiatric evaluations, and persons relevant to the Ss (e.g., family members, friends) were interviewed. SA was determined through evidence from treatment records, physical evidence, or reliable information from those knowledgeable about the Ss. More than half of the Ss had some type of active SA problem in the proximity of their homicidal behavior, and almost half were intoxicated at the time of the murder. Alcohol was the drug most often abused. Cluster analysis was used to identify 7 discrete homicide profiles with different SA patterns. In 2 of these profiles, SA was the preeminent etiological factor. In 3 other profiles, SA was one of several important etiological factors.
PROPORTIONS OF CRIMES ASSOCIATED WITH ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS IN CANADA
Intoxication at the time of committing a crime: More than half (54%) of offenders entering federal custody reported having been under the influence of a psychoactive substance when they committed the most serious crime on their current sentence. Alcohol intoxication was more common than drug intoxication (24% vs. 19%). Another 14% of federal inmates reported having been under the influence of both alcohol and drugs at the time they committed their most serious offence. Thus, in total 30% of federal inmates committed their most serious crime at least under the partial influence of drugs, and 38% committed this crime at least in part under the influence of alcohol.
Similarly high proportions of provincial inmates in the two Québec prisons reported being under the influence of alcohol or drugs when they committed their most serious crime (60% of males and 47% of females). The provincial female inmates were much more likely to report having been intoxicated from drugs only (28%) than were the men in any of the inmate studies (between 15% and 19%). Males in both federal and provincial prisons were more likely to be under the influence of alcohol.
The arresting police officers reported that 51% of arrestees were under the influence of a psychoactive substance at the time of arrest – 53% of men and 44% of women. Alcohol was indicated much more often than illicit drugs. One-third (33%) were assessed as being under the influence of alcohol only, 9% under the influence of illicit drugs only and another 9% under the influence of both alcohol and illicit drugs.
Alcohol intoxication dominated in the various violent crimes committed by the federal inmates. Among assault offenders, 39% reported being under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime, 9% illicit drugs, and 24% both drugs and alcohol. The corresponding proportions for homicides were 34% only alcohol, 7% only illicit drugs, and 21% both alcohol and illicit drugs. Among those convicted of attempted murder, 30% reported alcohol intoxication, 9% drug intoxication and 24% intoxication from both alcohol and drugs at the time of the crime. Thefts (32%), robberies (25%) and breaking and entering (24%) were crimes in which drug intoxication predominated, but alcohol intoxication was also relatively high (between 16% and 22% of these crimes), as was the combined intoxication from illicit drugs and alcohol (between 13% and 19% of these crimes).
Where illicit drugs were involved, cocaine and cannabis were the drugs most frequently mentioned by male inmates. Twelve per cent of federal inmates and 16% of provincial inmates reported being intoxicated by cocaine when they had committed their most serious offence, while 7% of federal inmates and 21% of provincial inmates reported they had been intoxicated with cannabis. Cocaine was most often mentioned by female inmates in Québec correctional facilities (27% vs. 9% for cannabis). Heroin was infrequently mentioned by federal inmates (2%) and provincial inmates (1% among males and 4% among females). (pp. 7-8)Now, some of these people are in prison simply because they were arrested for illegal drug possession, use, or selling--but only for 15% of these inmates was the most serious crime a drug crime (p. 6). On p. 8, they report that, unsurprisingly, some of these crimes were committed to obtain alcohol or drugs--but less than I would have guessed.
A significant proportion of crimes are reported to have been committed in order to obtain psychoactive substances for personal use. The proportion of inmates who reported committing their most serious offence in order to obtain alcohol and/or illicit drugs was 23% among federal inmates (14% illicit drugs only, 2% alcohol only and 7% both alcohol and illicit drugs) and 20% among the Québec provincial inmates (14% illicit drugs only, 2% alcohol only and 4% both alcohol and illicit drugs). The corresponding proportion of arrestees who were reported by the arresting officer to have committed their most serious offence in order to obtain alcohol and/or illicit drugs was 18% (15% illicit drugs only, 2% alcohol only and 1% both alcohol and illicit drugs). (p. 8)No surprise that about 15% were committing crimes to get illegal drugs--but even 2% were doing so just to obtain alcohol--and that's a legal drug. This suggests that addiction drives people to do really stupid things. Even if the illegal drugs were made legal, and had the same addictive control that alcohol does, we would still have a fair number of criminals prepared to commit serious crimes to get their drugs. Of course, there is reason to think that some of the illicit drugs, such as meth and heroin, are more addictive than alcohol. The other issue here is that lowering the price and increasing the legal availability of a drug is almost certainly going to increase the number of people who experiment with these drugs, and become addicted.
Here's a study from Sweden "Substance misuse and violent crime: Swedish population study"
During 1988-2000, 127 789 individuals (1.9% of the population) were discharged from hospital with diagnoses of substance misuse (mean age at first admission 49.1 (standard deviation 16.4) years; 28.4% female) and committed 80 215 violent crimes. The individual population attributable risk fractions for alcohol and substance misuse were 16.1% and 11.6% (table). The overall population attributable risk fraction for substance misuse was not calculated by adding these individuals' population attributable risk fractions, as some were admitted on repeated occasions, and a particular individual may have been diagnosed with alcohol or drug misuse on separate hospitalisations. The overall population attributable risk fraction for patients discharged with a principal diagnosis of substance misuse was 23.3%. We redid the analyses including secondary diagnoses of alcohol and drug misuse, which increased the population attributable risk fraction slightly to 24.7% (data not shown).
Population attributable risk (PAR) and population attributable risk fraction (PAF) of patients with substance misuse to violent crime in Sweden 1988-2000
↵* r is the number of violent crimes per 1000 individuals in the whole population over the study period, r0 is the number of violent crimes per 1000 among individuals not hospitalised for substance misuse, and r1 is the number of violent crimes per 1000 hospitalised patients with substance misuse. Calculations accounted for all admissions. Individuals admitted on several occasions receiving different diagnoses were counted in relevant diagnostic categories. The population attributable risk PAR=r−r0 and population attributable risk fraction PAF=PAR/r.
No people admitted to hospital No crimes committed by non-patients No crimes committed by patients r* r0* r1* PAR PAF (%) Principal diagnosis: Misuse of any substance 127 789 244 168 80 215 48.2 37.0 627.7 11.2 23.3 Alcohol misuse 105 918 267 558 56 825 48.2 40.4 536.5 7.8 16.2 Drug misuse 38 228 265 565 58 818 48.2 42.6 1318.0 5.6 11.6 Drug misuse: Opiates 6 167 316 091 8 292 48.2 47.0 1344.6 1.2 2.5 Cannabis 3 118 318 679 5 704 48.2 47.4 1829.4 0.8 1.7 Sedatives 5 004 321 676 2 707 48.2 47.9 541.0 0.4 0.8 Cocaine 196 323 992 391 48.2 48.2 1994.9 0.1 0.1 Amphetamines 5 523 313 049 11 334 48.2 46.6 2052.1 1.6 3.4 Hallucinogens 293 323 921 462 48.2 48.2 1576.8 0.1 0.1 Solvents 368 323 791 592 48.2 48.2 1608.7 0.1 0.2 Poly-drug misuse 13 413 303 446 20 937 48.2 45.2 1560.9 3.0 6.3 Drug induced psychosis 4 146 315 984 8 399 48.2 47.0 2025.8 1.2 2.5
Now, alcohol misuse is more commonly a cause of violent crime than illegal drug misuse in this study, but it appears that this is because alcohol is more commonly a basis for being hospitalized. Compare the r1 column (violent crimes per 1000 persons hospitalized for that intoxication problem) with the r column (violent crimes per 1000 persons in the general population). It is apparent that while alcohol misuse is correlated with an increase in violent crime rates, every other drug is even more strongly correlated--even cannabis, which everyone wants to believe mellows everyone out.
Now, I agree that correlation is not causation. It may be that people inclined to substance abuse are also generally more antisocial. But unless those violent crimes are associated with economic crimes to get drugs, it does appear that my original point is made: intoxication increased violence.
First, a lot of this post is correlation = causation. These studies start out by looking exclusively at criminals or people who abused drugs so badly they required hospitalization. One of the most important studies not done in the list of studies you've mentioned is to study all drug users. Would you say that guns should be made illegal due to the fact that most homicides are committed using guns? Or would you want to talk about the entire gun owning population, not just the crime producing subpopulation?
ReplyDeleteYou ignore comparing the number of lives destroyed or killed by drug warriors vs. the number of lives destroyed or killed by drug use, if it were legal. You can start by asking how many SWAT units have been created to violently serve warrants to non-violent drug offenders and find out how that worked out for Jose Guerena whose shooting does anything but reflect an "isolated incident".
In addition to this, you've ignored at least two points that I've brought up before:
You ignore government overreach and have failed to address the constitutionality of the drug war to begin with. At least with alcohol prohibition, the politicians in 1919 were humbled enough to recognize that the constitution did not authorize the federal government to interfere with the manufacture, sale, or consumption of alcohol and had to pass an amendment before the federal government could act on the prohibitive instincts. With the start of the drug war, no such humility or understanding of the constitution was displayed; in other words, as it stands right now, the drug war is unconstitutional.
One of the most important costs of the drug war is the creation of wealthy, brutal drug crime syndicates. This international crime syndicates are made incredibly wealthy by the absurd prohibition policies. This wealth allows them to become so wealthy that they threaten the stability of entire countries, like Mexico and Columbia.
I do not ignore any of these things. But those supporting legalization constantly discuss these very real, and very serious social problems, while either ignoring or giving very short shrift to the very real social problems associated with intoxication. One of the reasons that intoxicants have been the subject of regulatory efforts (and not always intelligently or competently done) is that throughout history, intoxicants have significant problems with violence and accidents.
ReplyDeleteLegalization removes one set of problems, but gives us another set of problems. What the net effect will be of legalization is uncertain. We might well find that the reduction in spending criminal justice administration for drug dealing and possession is greater than the increase in spending for the social problems associated with legalization and increased intoxicant use. Pretending that there is not a significant problem with legalizing intoxicants makes legalization advocates look like raving ideologues. Arguing, as many do, that opposition to legalization is simply people looking out for their own economic interests, is foolish.
I will agree: there are doubtless plenty of people who smoke pot all the time and never do anything stupid because it. There are plenty of people who use meth, and don't become rapists or murders. There are plenty of people who drink themselves to unconsciousness on a regular basis, and never drive drunk, or molest their kids, or fall of a ladder drunk, or murder their spouse. But these problems are not rare, and they are directly caused by intoxication. Pretending otherwise is just fanaticism.
I have not pretended that there are problems associated with intoxicants. I do dispute claims made that these intoxicants cause these problems. Suggesting that disputing this claim translates into fanaticism or raving ideology doesn't seem like a very honest or productive way to discuss the situation.
ReplyDeleteViolent thugs may be more willing to be more violent when intoxicated or that criminals may more be willing to commit crimes when intoxicated, but this is a far cry from saying that crime or criminals are created simply by using drugs. Getting high on anything doesn't transform normal people into violent thugs or criminals. There is ample evidence that these people use drugs as a way to cope with what they perceive as a shitty life, but no evidence that these people became violent or criminals because they used drugs. Violence and drugs are associated because violent people and criminals use drugs and are more likely to abuse drugs than the average person. Intoxicants are a great way to psychologically cope with the awful circumstances (perceived or real) in your life.
After recognizing that drugs and criminality are associated, it is a mistake to then make the leap to say that drugs should be made illegal, making criminals out of a rather large chunk of the population who have not harmed anyone or committed what anyone would consider a crime. All the sudden, instead of a couple tens or even hundreds of thousands of people, you've now made criminals out of tens of millions of people. To punish all, by restricting everyone's liberty, because of a very small percentage of people seems to be a very ham handed approach which should be avoided.
On top of all this, it's not a very effective way to deal with the problem.
You will have a very hard time finding many people who do not believe that intoxicants cause these problems. But that's because we have seen how intoxicants influence people. Feel free to continue arguing that intoxicants do not cause people to do stupid and criminal things.
ReplyDeleteYou will have a very hard time finding many people who do not believe that intoxicants cause these problems.
ReplyDeleteThe truth doesn't require people's beliefs to be true. It is true regardless. I have been high on a couple different drugs and drunk many many times. At no time did I do anything that I did not have complete control over. This is true of anyone I've ever talked to about it. Since I am not special, nor any of the other people I've spoken with, this is true for most, if not all, other people.
Although, it is true that people choose to do stupid things while intoxicated because they know they can fool people like you who forgives them because they were high. Instead of holding them responsible for their action you've chosen to blame a drug.
It's also easy to believe drugs made you do it because you've done stupid things while drunk or high. Instead of recognizing that you did choose to be that stupid you'd rather blame the drugs. Denial is a very strong thing.
You may not lose inhibitions when intoxicated. Most people have had other experiences, either for themselves or from watching others.
ReplyDeleteMost people have had other experiences
ReplyDeleteNobody has been considered normal, then taken drugs and all the sudden gotten violent and/or become criminal. There's a difference in lowered inhibitions and a change in personality.