National Institute on Drug Abuse

RESEARCH

MONOGRAPH SERIES

Drugs and

Violence: Causes,

Correlates, and

Consequences

1 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services • Public Health Service • National Institutes of Health

0 3
Drugs and Violence: Causes,

Correlates, and Consequences

Editors:

Mario De La Rosa, Ph.D.

Epidemiology Research Branch

National Institute on Drug Abuse

Elizabeth Y. Lambert, M.S.

Epidemiology Studies and Surveillance Branch

National Institute on Drug Abuse

Bernard Gropper, Ph.D.

Drugs, Alcohol, and Crime Research Program

National Institute of Justice

NIDA Research Monograph 103

1990

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Public Health Service

Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration

National Institute on Drug Abuse

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD 20857
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
Drugs and Violence:

Causes, Correlates, and

Consequences
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This monograph is based on the papers and discussion from a technical

review on “Drugs and Violence” held on September 25 and 26, 1989, in

Rockville, MD. The review meeting was sponsored by the Office of

Science and the Division of Epidemiology and Prevention Research,

National Institute on Drug Abuse.

COPYRIGHT STATUS

The National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institute of Justice have

obtained permission from the copyright holders to reproduce certain previously published material as noted in the text. Further reproduction of this

copyrighted material is permitted only as part of a reprinting of the entire

publication or chapter. For any other use, the copyright holder’s permission

is required. All other material in this volume except quoted passages from

copyrighted sources is in the public domain and may be used or reproduced

without permission from the Institute or the authors. Citation of the source

is appreciated.

Opinions expressed in this volume are those of the authors and do not

necessarily reflect the opinions or official policy of the National Institute on

Drug Abuse, National Institute of Justice, or any other part of the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services or U.S. Department of Justice.

The U.S. Government does not endorse or favor any specific commercial

product or company. Trade, proprietary, or company names appearing in

this publication are used only because they are considered essential in the

context of the studies reported herein.

DHHS publication number (ADM)90-1721

Printed 1990

NIDA Research Monographs are indexed in the Index Medicus. They are

selectively included in the coverage of American Statistics Index,

BioSciences Information Service, Chemical Abstracts, Current Contents,

Psychological Abstracts, and Psychopharmacology Abstracts.

iv
Contents

Page

Foreword vii

Charles R. Schuster

Introduction: Exploring the Substance Abuse-Violence

Connection 1

Mario De La Rosa, Elizabeth Y. Lambert, and

Bernard Gropper

Violence as Regulation and Social Control in the

Distribution of Crack 8

Jeffey Fagan and Ko-lin Chin

Violence Associated With Acute Cocaine Use in Patients

Admitted to a Medical Emergency Department 4 4

Steven L. Brody

The Operational Styles of Crack Houses in Detroit 6 0

Tom Mieczkowski

The Crack-Violence Connection Within a Population of

Hard-Core Adolescent Offenders 92

James A. Inciardi

v
Page

The Relationship Between Cocaine Use, Drug Sales, and

Other Delinquency Among a Cohort of High-Risk Youths

Over Time 112

Richard Dembo, Linda Williams, Werner Wothke,

James Schmeidler, Alan Getreu, Estrellita Berry,

Eric D. Wish, and Candice Christensen

The Drug Use-Violent Delinquency Link Among

Adolescent Mexican-Americans 136

W. David Watts and Loyd S. Wright

Gangs, Drugs, and Violence 160

Joan Moore

The Interrelationships Between Alcohol and Drugs and

Family Violence 177

Brenda A. Miller

Drug-Related Violence and Street Prostitution 208

Claire E. Sterk and Kirk W. Elifson

Drug Disorder, Mental Illness, and Violence 222

Karen M. Abram and Linda A. Teplin

Who’s Right: Different Outcomes When Police and

Scientists View the Same Set of Homicide Events,

New York City, 1988 239

Patrick J. Ryan, Paul J. Goldstein,

Henry H. Brownstein, and Patrica A. Bellucci

Summary Thoughts About Drugs and Violence 265

James J. Collins

List of NIDA Research Monographs 276

vi
Foreword

Drug abuse and drug-related violence are among the greatest concerns of

our citizens. There is a growing interest on the part of researchers, the

public, and all levels of our government in the causes, correlates, and

consequences of drugs and violence—both for better understanding of these

phenomena and for improving our efforts at converting understanding into

more effective prevention and control programs.

Many factors, such as the emergence of relatively cheap and widely available crack cocaine and widespread violence in drug trafficking, influence the

increase in drug-related violence within and outside the United States. The

challenge to public health and law enforcement communities is to develop

strategies for intervention and control that work. These are priority issues

within the missions and research agendas of both the National Institute on

Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ).

On September 26-27, 1989, NIDA, with the collaboration of NIJ, held a

Technical Review meeting on “Drugs and Violence.” The focus of this

meeting was to review recent research advances made in the study of the

relationships between drugs and violence. Data from a number of NIDAand NIJ-funded research projects addressing different aspects of these

relationships were presented and are included in this monograph. This

meeting and monograph underscore the continuing collaborative research

efforts by NIDA and NIJ to explore the linkages between drug use and

violence and other criminal behaviors.

The studies presented here represent only a sampling of the types of basic

and applied research efforts that contribute to development of a sound informational base from which health providers and law enforcement officials

can develop mote effective strategies and programs to combat these problems. It is hoped that this monograph will serve as a framework for further

efforts in these areas and help us teach our common goals of making our

society—and our world—a safer and healthier place to live.

Charles R. Schuster, Ph.D.

Director

National Institute on Drug Abuse

vii
The National Drug Control Strategy indicates that our Nation’s success in

overcoming the problems of drug abuse and drug-related crime depends

upon the efforts of all our citizens and all agencies of Government The

strategy provides a comprehensive framework and a balanced approach for

our priorities in prevention and control, supply and demand reduction, law

enforcement and treatment, research. and evaluation.

Research plays a vital role in supporting these efforts by assessing the

nature and extent of the problems, developing the scientific and technical

bases for effective public policies, identifying and assessing Programmatic

options, and evaluating the impacts of our drug control interventions.

The studies on drugs and violence within this volume exemplify the

collaborative relationships between the research programs of the National

institute of Justice in the Department of Justice and the National Institute

on Drug Abuse in the Department of Health and Human Services on these

priority issues.

The chapters encompass both qualitative and quantitative approach to

research, including: the development of conceptual frameworks; the

observation, description, treatment, prevention, and prediction of drug abuse

and related violence: and the translation of definitions into practice for

statistic databases and other applications. Though they focus on U.S.

populations and conditions, foreign researchers and governments express

continuing interest in our research methods, data, and approaches to

addressing drug abuse, drug-related crime, and drug-related violence. This

evidence reflects significant potential for making greater contributions to

solving these drug problems that affect our Nation and the world.

Charles B. DeWitt

Director Designate

National Institute of Justice

viii
Introduction: Exploring the

Substance Abuse-Violence

Connection

Mario De La Rosa, Elizabeth Y. Lambert, and

Bernard Gropper

The complex relationships between substance abuse and violence have posed

challenges to the research community and public health professions for

decades. Research literature on drugs and violence abounds and continues

to grow, with broad representation from the disciplines of education, medicine, sociology, criminology, epidemiology, and psychology. Understanding

the causes, correlates, and consequences of drugs and violence is necessary

to develop effective public health and law enforcement strategies for prevention and control. Some may despair, believing the links between substance

abuse and violence to be inseparable and complex, and, therefore, believing

that effective solutions cannot be found. Efforts to understand these relationships can contribute to a process for identifying ways to prevent their

occurrence or to reduce their magnitude, severity, and their recent apparent

intensification.

Links between alcohol abuse and violence have been recognized for years.

Recently, new varieties of violence have emerged, largely in relation to the

abuse and distribution of crack cocaine. The 1980s have seen a growing

number of apparently “random” or “impersonal” homicides—that is, homicides of persons unknown or hardly known to their assailants. These socalled “hit men” style slayings have been linked to the crack trade, with

drug dealers competing against other dealers to comer the market or preserve their territories. Victims are typically young boys or men and are

often minorities living in inner cities. Occasionally, distinct patterns of

injury can be recognized: drug runners, young teenagers who carry drugs

and money between sellers and buyers, are being seen in emergency rooms

more frequently with gunshot wounds to the legs and knees; a more vicious

style of drug-related injury has emerged in the western part of the United

1
States. In this injury, known as “pithing,” the victim’s spinal cord is cut,

and he or she is left alive, but paraplegic.

In the 1950s and 1960s, research on the relation between drug abuse and

violence focused on criminal behaviors of narcotic addicts. It was generally

accepted that opiate or heroin users were more likely to engage in nonviolent property crimes than in other types of crime. This was supported by

data from major metropolitan areas showing a positive correlation between

rates of heroin addiction and property crimes and a negative correlation

between rates of heroin addiction and crimes against persons. Later research by Kozel and Dupont, Inciardi, Chambers, and Nurco lent additional

support to these findings.

From research spanning the late 1960s to today, the primary substance

implicated in violent crimes has been alcohol, far more often than illicit

drugs. Alcohol abuse and violence are endemic to America’s culture, dating

back to the days of Prohibition, with violent rivalries between bootleggers,

and existing as intensely today, with high rates of alcohol-mediated domestic violence, homicides, vehicular accidents, and traumatic injuries. With

increased use of amphetamines in the 1970s and the development of cocaine

distribution networks in the 1930s, research began to focus on the relation

between psychopharmacologic effects of drug use and violent behavior and

on systemic violence associated with drug-dealing lifestyles. The findings

from these studies indicated that, although certain types of illicit drugs, e.g.,

stimulants, hallucinogens, may be associated with violent behavior, most

psychopharmacologically induced violent crimes continued to involve alcohol. Violent crimes involving illicit drugs were more likely from trade

transactions between drug dealers and drug users.

In the mid- to late 1980s, reports of increased violence from crack use and

distribution networks among inner-city minority communities made it urgent

for public health officials and epidemiologists to look into the intensifying

problem and develop strategies for intervention and control. A product of

this renewed research activity was Paul Goldstein’s development of a conceptual framework to explain complexities between violence and drugs.

Goldstein’s tripartite theoretical model distinguishes three dimensions for

understanding drugs and violence: psychopharmacologic, economic compulsive, and systemic. The psychopharmacologic dimension refers to effects of

substances on behavior, as when consumers become irrational, excited, agitated, or unable to control their anger and violent impulses. The economic

compulsive dimension refers to violent crime committed to obtain money or

other forms of currency to purchase drugs for personal use. The systemic

dimension addresses violence intrinsic to the lifestyles and business methods

of drug distributors and traffickers.

This monograph reports findings from a variety of studies on aspects of the

drug and violence nexus. Its chapters address a broad spectrum of issues,

2
including studies on violence and aggression in crack distribution networks

in New York City and Detroit, MI; correlations between illicit drug abuse

and domestic violence; links among gangs, drugs, and violence; crack and

violence among jwenile delinquents, including delinquents who are Hispanic; the relation between prostitution, drugs, and violence; problems with

using police data for research on drug-related violent crimes; neuropsychological effects of acute cocaine abuse on violent behavior; and links between mental illness, drugs, and violence. The monograph concludes with

an examination of Goldstein’s tripartite model as a conceptual framework

for exploring, understanding, and predicting the causes, correlates, and consequences of drug and violence.

The themes embodied within these manuscripts reflect both qualitative and

quantitative approaches. The analytic focus is on the individual and small

to mid-sized groups such as the gang and the family. These are the most

relevant units of inquiry for most problems of the etiology of drug use and

abuse and the types of drug-related violence experienced at the neighborhood, local, and State level. Although the focus of this volume is on current U.S. conditions, population, and subgroups, the underlying nature of the

phenomena and the principles embodied in the research methods and findings are to some extent relevant to situations outside of the United States.

Drs. Fagan and Chin examine violence and aggression among a cohort of

crack dealers and other illicit drug dealers in New York City. Unlike previous research on drug-related violence, Fagan and Chin’s work explores

possible origins of violence in drug selling. Specifically, it addresses

whether violence in crack distribution networks tends to be contingent on

drug-selling activities or is more reflective of a generalized pattern of crime

and violence among those individuals involved in the crack or drug trade.

Their results suggest that both conditions influence violence in crack selling.

In general, crack sellers were more likely than other drug sellers to use

violence for regulation and control, to be involved in other types of violent

crimes, and to be immersed in a violent social world. Drs. Fagan and Chin

hypothesize from these data that violence among crack sellers may be leas a

function of risks associated with the settings in which crack is sold, and

more a function of individual predispositions toward violent lifestyles, even

before such persons become involved in drug dealing.

Dr. Brody’s chapter examines the relation between acute cocaine intoxication and aggression and violent behavior among a group of patients admitted to a hospital emergency department. The data presented suggest that

more than half the cocaine-involved patients were combative and agitated,

with symptoms of paranoia and delirium at the time of admission. As the

effects of cocaine tend to subside rapidly, acute pharmacologic therapy for

these individuals was rarely indicated. When it was necesary to treat

cocaine-induced cases of acute psychosis, however, haloperidol was found to

be relatively effective.

3
Dr. Mieczkowski further explores crack and violence among a group of

drug dealers and users in Detroit. The objective was to identify methods

used by local crack dealers to distribute cocaine at the retail level and to

describe principles of management and organization that typify these methods. Results indicate that crack dealers and users practice three distinct but

overlapping distribution and selling methods. These are (1) the street-comer

or walkup sale system, (2) the beeper and runner system, and (3) the crackhouse system, the preferred method of most crack dealers. The operational

styles associated with each method reflect economic principles and practices

seen in legitimate businesses. For example, Mieczkowski reports that crackhouse operations ranged from very austere, in which social interaction between those conducting the crack transaction was severely restricted, to

“tavern style” crack houses, in which socialization extended beyond the exchange of money for crack and often included exchanges of sex for drugs.

Data further suggest that violence is more endemic to the street-corner or

walkup sale system than to other methods of crack sale. One possible

reason is that the social setting of the street drug-sale scene is less protected

than either crack houses or the runner and beeper systems, leading dealers

to gravitate toward violence to regulate and control their drug territories.

Dr. Inciardi’s chapter explores patterns of violent criminal behavior and

crack use among a cohort of seriously delinquent youth in Miami, FL.

Dr. Inciardi found that youth who were more deeply involved in crackdealing activities were more likely to commit violent crimes than those who

were less involved with drugs and the crack distribution network. The

majority of violent crimes either committed by the youths in the study or

perpetrated against them (robberies) were to purchase drugs, followed by

violent crimes related to drug trafficking and by drug-induced or psychopharmacologic violence.

The relation between drugs and violence is further examined by Drs.

Dembo, Watts, and Wright, who, like Inciardi, address cocaine use, drug

sales, and delinquency. Data from Dr. Dembo’s research with a cohort of

high-risk youths held in a regional detention center in Tampa indicate that

involvement in drug sales was significantly and positively related to both

nonviolent and violent crimes. The study found violent crimes to be significantly and directly related to involvement in drug sales. Results suggest

that most violent and nonviolent crimes involving youth in this sample were

related to the business of drug selling, as would be predicted by the systemic dimension of Goldstein’s tripartite model.

The study by Watts and Wright explores correlations between drugs and

violence among a cohort of Mexican-American youth. Correlation analysis

of factors on violent delinquency among these youth revealed that illegal

drug use contributed the greatest amount of variance, followed by friends’

drug and tobacco use, lack of parental supervision, and family drug use.

The interview results suggest that acculturation-related stress and familial

4
fragmentation between parents and children may contribute to both drug use

and violent behavior among some youth.

Dr. Moore’s chapter addresses a topic of increasing attention in our society

today, the link between gangs, drugs, and violence. She argues that whatever we know about drug-related gang violence “comes almost entirely from

the media and police, and it is almost always sensationalized.” Her study

of traditional Mexican-American gangs like the “White Fences” in East Los

Angeles indicates that gang-related violence is in fact inherent to normal

gang activities. But this violence is more often a function of intergang

conflict than it is related to the drug trade. Although some youth gangs

were found to be involved in drug-related violent criminal activities, this

was not the norm for most. Drug-related violence stemmed from drugdealing activities of individual gang members or former gang members more

than from activities of the youth gang as an organized entity. Further,

Dr. Moore and her associates argue that most of the gangs identified by law

enforcement officials as heavily involved in drug-related criminal activities

did not emerge from traditional youth gangs established in black and

Hispanic communities before the onset of the crack epidemic. Rather, these

groups grew out of criminal organizations formed solely for crack distribution and trafficking. As such, they have few if any of the behavioral characteristics found among more traditional youth gangs.

The interrelation between alcohol, illicit drugs, and family violence comprise

Dr. Miller’s research focus. Analysis of data from a series of studies on

family violence among a group of male parolees and their spouses suggest

that alcohol abuse is a greater risk factor than is illicit drug use. Dr.

Miller’s studies suggest that alcohol and illicit drug problems experienced

by parolees related directly to the level of violence experienced by their

Spouses. “For those parolees who reported no drug problems, alcohol problems increased the level of violence. However, when the parolee had drug

problems, alcohol problems did not increase the level of violence.” Additional findings indicate that alcohol use rather than drug use was more

likely related to child abuse.

Drs. Sterk and Elifson focus on the relation between male and female prostitution, drug use, and violence. Violence and drug use are shown to be

intrinsic to the world of prostitution. Key findings from their work in

Atlanta and New York are that males tend to work as prostitutes prior to

initiating drug use, while females are more often drug users first and later

resort to prostitution, often in direct exchange for drugs or for money to

buy drugs. The research shows that the dynamics of the street scene have

been dramatically affected by the emergence of crack cocaine. The world

of street prostitution, always dangerous and unpredictable, has become even

more so.

5
The chapter by Drs. Teplin and Abram presents findings on interrelations

between mental illness, drug use, and violent crime among a cohort of male

jail detainees in Chicago, IL. Individuals assessed as having antisocial personality disorders, with or without drug-use problems, were found to be

more likely to be involved in violent crimes than those who had a drug or

alcohol problem but did not have antisocial personality disorders. The

authors point out that persons having drug-use problems are not necessarily

mote likely to commit violent acts than other offenders. Rather, it is the

individual with antisocial personality problems, regardless of his drug problem, who is more prone to violence.

The accuracy of information collected by police on drug-related violent

crime is addressed in detail by Dr. Ryan. He presents findings from a

project that sought to: (1) develop procedures for collecting valid and

reliable data about apparent motives in drug-related homicides (psychopharmacologic, economic compulsive, and systemic) in New York City and

(2) integrate these reporting and analytic procedures into protocols for homicide investigations by New York City police. The results suggest that

experimental implementation of the procedures in a joint police-researcher

effort improved the quality of data collected on drug-related homicides and

permitted analyses of drug-crime links that would otherwise not have been

feasible.

Dr. Collins expands upon Goldstein’s tripartite conceptual framework on

drugs and violence by addressing other risk factors that may be indirectly or

directly implicated in their epidemiology. Such factors as early childhood

injuries, abuse, or neglect; socialization experiences; lack of economic

opportunity; community disorganization; and physical reactions to specific

types of drugs are cited as important adjuncts to Goldstein’s tripartite conceptual framework. Dr. Collins suggests that the integration of these factors

into Goldstein’s model would enhance its power to explain and to predict

phenomena associated with drugs and violence.

The chapters in this monograph represent a diversity of disciplines and

research areas concerned with the causes, correlates, and consequences of

drugs and violence. Yet, despite the breadth of information presented here,

many unknowns remain. It is hoped that, by bringing together some of the

issues associated with drugs and violence and the consequences they have

on our society, this monograph will inform and inspire others to contribute

to the epidemiologic knowledge base. More important perhaps, it will lead

to the formation of educational, social, judicial, and medical strategies to

reduce and prevent drug abuse and violence. One point remains very clear:

the problems of drugs and violence are complex and seem to be intensifying, underscoring the urgency for effective public health, legal, and social

interventions.

6
AUTHORS

Mario De La Rosa, Ph.D.

Social Science Analyst

Epidemiology Research Branch

Elizabeth Lambert, M.S.

Statistician

Epidemiology Studies and

Surveillance Branch

Division of Epidemiology and

Prevention Research

National Institute on Drug Abuse

Parklawn Building, Room 11A-55

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD 20857

Bernard Gropper, Ph.D.

Program Manager

Drugs, Alcohol, and Crime

Research Program

National Institute of Justice

633 Indiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

7
Violence as Regulation and Social

Control in the Distribution of Crack

Jeffrey Fagan and Ko-lin Chin

INTRODUCTION

After nearly a century of research on the relation between substance use

and violence, drug use and trafficking have only recently been examined

separately as etiological factors in violence and aggression. Violence associated with selling illicit substances has been evident since the Opium Wars

in China and illegal whiskey importation into the American colonies (Musto

1989). In this century, illicit distribution of alcohol during the Prohibition

Era led to widespread violence as criminal organizations competed for market share and territory (Zahn 1989). Violence intrinsic to drug distribution

has been associated with marijuana production and selling (Adler 1985),

heroin selling (Ianni 1974; Goldstein et al. 1984; Johnson et al. 1985;

McBride 1981), and, more recently, cocaine and crack selling (Goldstein

et al. 1987; Goldstein et al., in press; Johnson et al., in press; Williams

1989; Adler 1985; Murphy et al., unpublished manuscript).1

Recognition of the etiological relevance of drug trafficking to violence has

resulted in more careful formulation of theories of the drug-violence relationship. Specifically, examination of homicides and other violent behaviors

that involve drugs suggests separate explanatory frameworks for violence

that occurs following intoxication, violence that occurs in the “service” of

substance use, and violence that occurs during the course of drug trafficking

(Goldstein 1985; Goldstein 1989). In the context of drug selling, further

distinctions are evident between violence associated with wholesale distribution and violence in street-level transactions (Goldstein 1989).

There are several influences on violence that occurs in the context of streetlevel (seller-user) drug distribution. Violence may be used to enforce

organizational discipline or resolve business disputes. Disputes over drugs

and drug paraphernalia are commonplace among users and sellers. Territorial disputes are commonplace among drug sellers. Street-level sellers may

skim profits from mid-level suppliers or crew bosses. In the absence of

8
legal recourse for illegal activities, such disputes are likely to be settled

either by economic reprisal or by violence. Violence in drug dealing can

be viewed as an extension of behaviors that are associated with efficiency

and success in legitimate businesses (Black 1983).

The social milieu of drug-selling and drug-buying areas also is conducive to

robbery of sellers and users for either cash or drugs. The spurious connec

tion of drug use and crime suggests that drug selling will be concentrated in

social areas with concentrations of the social structural features of violent

crime and victimization. The reciprocal nature of the drug business and

violence may influence the decision to participate in drug selling-individuals averse to violence may avoid street-level drug transactions, leaving only

those willing to engage in violent behaviors as participants. Self-selection

of violent individuals for participation in the drug business also may increase the likelihood of violence during drug transactions. For example,

Fagan (1989) found that the drug selling-violence relationship among youth

gangs was strongest for gangs most frequently involved in all types of

violence.

This chapter examines violence and aggression among crack and other illicit

drug sellers in New York City. Few studies have addressed the origins of

violence in drug selling, specifically whether such violence reflects generalized violence or violent behaviors contingent on drug selling. Aggression in

crack selling appears to be commonplace and severe (Goldstein et al., unpublished manuscript; Goldstein 1989; Johnson et al. 1990; New York Times

1989b) and is the focus of this study. Aggression evident in nondrug criminality is compared for crack sellers and other seller types. If violence in

drug selling is a distinct behavior that reflects the contingencies of the unregulated marketplace, participation of sellers in nondrug violence will be

less evident. However, if violence in drug selling involves processes of

self-selection of generally violent individuals, their participation in nondrug

violent crimes will be extensive. This interpretation would further suggest

that systemic violence in drug selling is spuriously related to other etiological factors in violence and crime commission, rather than a function of

unique social processes of drug selling.

The Emergence of Crack and Crack Markets

The appearance of crack in New York City in 1985 has been widely associated with increased violence in illicit drug markets (New York Times 1989a;

Fagan and Chin, in press). Crack was introduced in New York shortly after

the use and sale of powdered cocaine had reached its highest level nationwide in 1982 (Zimmer 1987). Most cocaine users had been aware of the

intensified high from smoking freebase cocaine (Siegel 1982; Siegel 1987).

However, sufficient quantities of cocaine for “basing” had been beyond the

economic means of most drug users. An apparent reduction in the import

price of cocaine in the mid-1980s made the raw material for smokable

9
cocaine economically accessible to all users. Moreover, compared to the

manufacture of freebase cocaine, the crack production process was cheaper

and more efficient. Crack was produced by heating cocaine with household

substances, e.g., baking soda, rather than with the volatile and expensive

chemicals, e.g., ether, used to transform cocaine hydrochloride (HCl) (the

powder) into its base form.

Crack was marketed at a low unit cost in a rock or pebble form that was

easily concealed and ingested. Its crystalline appearance conveyed an image

of purity. The ingenious production and marketing strategy for crack gave

it the appearance of a cheaper (albeit shorter) “high” from a purer form of

cocaine. Following closely the growth in popularity of cocaine HCl and

encouraged by the well-known advantages of smoking cocaine, cocaine

users were quick to accept and popularize its new smokable form. As with

the more expensive freebase form, compulsive use often developed following initiation into cocaine smoking (Siegel 1982; Siegel 1987; Spitz and

Rosecan 1987; Washton and Cold 1987; Waldorf et al. 1990). More than

60 percent of cocaine users admitted for treatment in New York State in

1986 reported smoking crack as the primary method of cocaine use (Frank

et al. 1987).

At first, crack was mass marketed in inner-city neighborhoods in or near

cocaine importation points such as Miami, Los Angeles, and New York

(Inciardi 1987), and it spread later to other cities (Newsweek 1986). Ethnographic (Hopkins 1989; Bourgois 1989), government (Frank et al. 1987;

Mieczkowski, in press), and media reports (New York Times 1989a; Newsweek 1986) revealed that crack often was sold in centralized locations

(crack houses) where buyers had access to crack limited only by their

funds. Reports from users in treatment (Frank et al. 1987), the popular

press (New York Times 1989b), and criminal justice agencies (Belenko

et al., in press) also confirmed that crack was widely available throughout

New York City.

Within 2 years, crack use and trafficking were widespread and highly

visible throughout New York City, especially in its most socially and economically deprived neighborhoods (Hopkins 1989; Johnson et al., in press;

New York Times 1989b; New York Times 1989c). For drug sellers, crack

production was efficient, and its popularity made it extremely profitable.

In short, crack was an excellent investment.

Crack Selling and Aggression: Victimization or Social Control?

Crack appeared in inner-city neighborhoods that had experienced profound

social and economic deterioration in the decade preceding its appearance

(Wacquant and Wilson 1989). The 1970s was a decade marked by labor

surpluses in inner cities, created by the relocation of jobs to “satellite

cities” in surrounding suburbs. Citing data from the U.S. Department of

10
Commerce, Kasarda (1989) shows that between 1970 and 1980, the number

of blue-collar and clerical jobs in New York declined by over 350,000 but

increased by over 75,000 in the surrounding suburbs. Technical and managerial jobs in the city increased by over 250,000 during this time and by

over 400,000 in the suburbs.

Traditionally, African-Americans have relied heavily on blue-collar jobs in

manufacturing for economic sustenance and social mobility (Farley and

Allen 1987). Thus, the economic restructuring of American inner cities

resulted in large-scale exclusion of their minority residents from constricting

labor markets that also were transforming from manufacturing to services

and shifting geographically from the inner city to the surrounding suburbs

(Hochschild 1989). Similar processes, compounded by language and other

cultural barriers, created severe economic dislocations for Puerto Ricans, in

turn creating conditions of severe impoverishment (Farley 1987; Tienda

1989b; Kasarda 1988).2

Accordingly, the potential for high profits from selling crack attracted young

initiates into drug dealing in social areas in which legitimate economic activity had decreased. For many young inner-city residents in this decade,

the informal economy offered the mast lucrative income opportunities

(Sassen-Koob 1989). Involvement in the high-profit informal crack market

offered economic opportunities to replace formal opportunities lost as capital flowed out of inner-city neighborhoods in the decades preceding its

emergence.

Prior to crack, drug-related crimes generally were attributed to heroin use,

and there was little overlap between users and sellers. Stable organized

crime groups controlled heroin distribution, while drug-motivated crimes

were usually attributed to heroin users, whose crimes served their drug use

(Ball et al. 1983; Johnson et al. 1985; Johnson et al. 1990). As cocaine

use increased both nationally and in inner cities from 1975 to 1982 (Kozel

and Adams 1985; Siegel 1985), cocaine selling in New York City became

more prevalent among drug sellers than was heroin selling (Zimmer 1987).

The co-incidence of cocaine and other drug use and selling also rose during

this period, as drug distribution essentially became a decentralized activity

with cocaine HCl’s increased availability of and decreased price (Zimmer

1987; Williams 1989).

The proliferation of cocaine distribution activities in this era seemed to have

two effects. First, opportunities for drug distribution by new organizations

apparently increased, creating economic incentives for individuals in inner

cities to participate in the informal drug economy. New York Police

Department (NYPD) officials characterized the crack “industry” as “capitalism gone mad” (New York Times 1989b), with no legal, economic, or informal social controls (Adler 1985; Murphy et al., unpublished manuscript).

Second, the social processes of drug distribution seemed to change, as

11
inner-city neighborhoods in New York declined economically, and new

opportunities were created for users to participate in low-level selling

activities. The institutionalization of drug selling among inner-city residents

in this era naturally extended to crack (Johnson et al., in press; New York

Times 1989c; New York Times 1989e). Drug selling increased during a

time when social and economic changes weakened formal and informal

social controls against violence at the neighborhood level.

Thus, crack distribution systems developed in a social context in which

poverty and social disorganization were intensifying (Massey and Eggers

1990; Tienda 1989a), social institutions and economic activities that traditionally provided social controls against violence were weakening (Sampson

1986; Sampson 1987), there was an absence of established drug-dealing organizations and territories for this product (Williams 1989; Johnson et al.,

in press), and a high demand existed for a product that for many initiates

quickly led to compulsive use.

Violence associated with drug dealing increased at the same time that crack

was introduced in the drug market. Hamid (1990) showed how the political

economy of drug selling changed over a 25-year period in Caribbean neighborhoods in Brooklyn, as drug trafficking evolved from the peaceful trade

of marijuana to normative violence in crack markets. Goldstein et al.

(1987; Goldstein et al. 1989) also illustrated the increase in drug-related

violence associated with decentralized cocaine distribution systems. Crack’s

appeal as a powerful and addictive drug, together with extraordinary profits

from street sales, may have intensified drug-violence links that were more

tenuous and contingent before the appearance of crack.

Accordingly, the appearance of crack coincided with the transformation of

drug-related violence from the older patterns of economic compulsive crimes

(to obtain money for drugs) to protection of economic interests (from territorial incursions by other sellers or robberies for cash or drugs) and regulation of emerging businesses (enforcement of discipline among employees).

Disputes between nascent drug-dealing organizations led to reported increases in systemic violence during the competition for control of neighborhood markets (New York Times 1989b; Williams 1989; Hamid 1990;

Bourgois 1989). Increases since 1987 in hospital emergency room cases

involving gunshot wounds, fractures, and other wounds indicative of intentional injury have been attributed to violence surrounding crack, rather than

increases in the base rate of violence (New York Times 1989a).

The Present Study

The symbolic meaning of criminal conduct may be interpreted simply as a

violation of a legal or moral prohibition or as a form of self-help and social

control (Black 1983)3. Viewed in relation to the illicit nature of drug distribution, violence in crack dealing would be expected to occur as a form of

12
economic regulation and organizational maintenance. Hobbesian theory

would suggest that, in conditions in which law and governmental social control are least developed, violence would be more evident as a form of social

control. In the volatile and illicit crack market, this view implies that violence should be limited to those organizational or economic situations that

require regulation. Since the activity is illicit, violence also is necessary as

a form of self-help; drug sellers cannot legitimately bring legal grievances

for crimes within the selling context. If crime is social control and economic regulation, then predatory or expressive crimes should be less evident.

However, crack distribution systems developed under conditions that were

conducive to criminal conduct, as well as to the specific forms of violence

more commonly associated with drug distribution. The rapid growth of

crack use and emergence of crack-selling organizations occurred in socially

disorganized areas with few legitimate economic opportunities and strained

informal social controls, conditions associated with increased rates of predatory and expressive violent crimes (Sampson 1986; Sampson 1987). Violence thus regarded sociologically is less likely to be confined to ccntingencies that either are moralistic or instrumental and would be evident both

within and outside the context of drug selling.

To adequately explain violence within drug distribution, comparisons are

necessary of violence both within the social and economic context of drug

selling and violence that occurs in other situations. If violence within drug

selling is a form of social control and economic regulation, violence not

associated with drug selling should be less frequent. However, if violence

within drug-selling contexts simply is a manifestation of generalized criminal proclivities, there should be few distinctions between violence in the

service of drug dealing and violence outside the dealing context.

To test these competing explanations of violence in drug distribution, violence within and apart from the context of drug dealing is compared for

individuals involved in various types of drug distribution activities in New

York City neighborhoods where crack use and sales have grown rapidly in

the past few years. A theory of violence as social control predicts limited

involvement of drug sellers in violence outside the context of selling. A

generalized theory of crime predicts no distinctions between violence in the

context of dealing and other varieties of crime.

METHODS

Samples

Samples were constructed from two northern Manhattan neighborhoods with

high concentrations of crack use and selling: Washington Heights and

West Harlem. Samples included individuals from the study neighborhoods

who had been arrested for drug possession or sales, residents of the study

13
neighborhoods who matched the arrested populations but who had avoided

legal or social intervention for drug use or selling, and participants in residential drug treatment programs. Within each group, subjects included

crack users or sellers, cocaine HCl users or sellers who were not involved

with crack, heroin users or sellers, and polydrug (primarily marijuana) users.

Samples were recruited through chain referral or “snowball” sampling procedures (Biemacki and Waldorf 1981). Since the research was part of a

larger study of crack, crack users and sellers were oversampled. Crack

arrestees were recruited from drug arrestees who were awaiting initial court

appearances in the Manhattan central booking facility. They were identified

from special charge flags recorded by arresting officers on booking slips.

The arrest flags have been used by the NYPD since 1986 to identify crack

offenses, since charge categories do not distinguish various types of controlled substances. Residential neighborhood was determined from the

addresses and corresponding zip codes provided by arrestees to the

interviewers.

Referrals for interview were made by pretrial services interviewers during

routine interviews to determine eligibility for release on their own recognizance. Arrestees released at arraignment were interviewed shortly after

release. (Those arrestees detained were interviewed in the detention facility.) Arrestees who indicated their willingness to participate in a research

study were given cards that told them where and how to arrange for an

interview. Their names also were given to the interview team who, in

some cases, sought them out.

Other subjects also were recruited through chain referral procedures: noncrack drug arrestees; nonarrested neighborhood samples who were matched

to the arrested samples on age, gender, and ethnicity; and participants in

two residential treatment programs in Manhattan. Several types of chain

referral methods were used. Arrestees were asked to nominate potential

respondents who were “like them in many ways but who have avoided

arrest.” Interviewers then sought out the nominees, or the nominees were

referred to the field office by friends. Chains also were developed among

drug users and sellers who were known to the interviewers. Interviewers

were members of a street research unit that maintained ethnographic contact

and did reconnaissance on drug scenes throughout the New York metropolitan area.

Residential treatment clients were recruited from their programs based on

nominations of crack and other drug users by administrators and clinical

staff. Treatment residents who had been in the program for at least

1 month and had met screening criteria for each drug-user type were asked

to participate in treatment.

14
A brief (10 item) screening interview was used to classify respondents and

validate their reports. Respondents were classified by their primary drug

involvement if they had used (or sold) that drug on more than 50 occasions

in their lifetime, and if they had not used (or sold) another substance more

than that amount. Multiple drug users were classified according to the most

frequent drug used or sold in the past year. Interviews were conducted

with 559 respondents over a l-year period from June 1988 to May 1989.

Sample characteristics are shown in table 1.

Crack users or sellers (n=350) comprised 62 percent of the sample. Cocaine and heroin users comprised 15 and 14 percent, respectively; the remainder were polydrug users. One in four (23.6 percent) had been arrested

and released, two in three respondents (67.1 percent) were neighborhood

participants who had avoided arrest, and 1 in 11 (9.3 percent) were in treatment. Crack respondents were younger than the others, and heroin users

the oldest. Two in three were males. Crack users more often were

African-Americans, and cocaine HCl users most often were either of Puerto

Rican or other Hispanic ethnicity. Slightly more than half were high school

graduates, and about one in four had attended college.

Procedures

Interviews were conducted in a variety of settings that reflected criteria on

appropriate interviewing conditions. The criteria required that interviews be

confidential and anonymous-they could not be overheard by anyone else,

and the identity of the respondent must be unknown to anyone in the immediate setting. The criteria also required that the conditions be sufficiently

comfortable to sustain a conversation lasting as long as 2 hours. Finding

locations where smoking was permitted, for example, posed some difficulty.

Since urine specimens were requested as a validation measure, a locale with

a bathroom was needed where the procedure could be verified. A final

consideration was the safety of the interviewers, as they carried cash for

interviewee stipends.

Interviews lasted from 1 to 2 hours, with a short break after the first hour.

Interview stipends of $25 were provided, plus $5 for the urine specimen

and smaller fees for referrals of potential interviewees and location information for possible followup. Respondents also were given two subway

tokens and a pack of cigarettes. Treatment respondents were not given the

stipend; it was donated to the residential treatment program. They also

were not asked for urine specimens, since they had been residing in treatment programs for 1 month or longer.

Interview items were read aloud. Cards with the response sets were shown

to respondents and the choices read aloud so that literacy problems were

minimized. The interviews were conducted in both English and Spanish.

15
TABLE 1. Sample characteristics

Background Factors

Primary Drug Used or Sold

Crack Cocaine Heroin Polydrug

n=350 n=85 n=76 n=48 Significance

(62%) (15%) (14%) (9%) p (chi square)

Age at Interview

18 or Less

19-24

25-30

31 or Older

Age at Onset

18 or Less

19-24

25-30

31 or Older

Sex

Male

Female

Race

Afro-American

Anglo

Puerto Rican

Other Hispanic

Education

Less than HS Graduate

HS Graduate

Some College

Current Employment

Working/Student

Unemployed/Dropout

Legal/Social Status

Neighborhood

Arrested and Released

In Treatment

Marital Status

Married/Common Law

Single

Widow/Separated

Live With Children

No Children

Live With Child

Live Apart From Child

9.0 6.0 6.7 16.7

25.9 22.6 13.3 33.3

28.5 23.8 20.0 27.1

36.6 47.6 60.0 22.9

19.6 56.6 50.7 72.9

24.0 28.9 35.6 20.8

28.9 10.8 12.3 4.2

27.5 3.6 1.4 2.1

65.7 68.2 73.7 54.2

34.3 31.8 26.3 45.8

69.6 38.8 48.7 70.8

5.2 8.2 11.8 8.3

8.0 27.1 7.9 8.3

17.2 25.9 31.6 12.5

49.7 38.8 40.5 21.7

34.9 37.6 37.8 60.9

15.4 23.5 21.6 17.4

15.7

84.3

58.9 77.6 76.3 93.8

28.3 17.6 19.7 6.3

12.9 4.7 3.9 0.0

16.9 24.7

65.3 56.5

17.8 18.8

40.5 28.6

16.1 21.4

43.4 50.0

32.9 23.7 66.7

67.1 76.3 33.3

26.3

53.9

19.7

33.3

13.3

53.3

18.8

72.9

8.3

54.2

25.0

20.8

.003

.000

.158

.000

.004

.000

.000

.150

.008

16
Variables

Interview protocols included four domains of information: initiation into

substance use or selling; lifetime and annual involvement with both substances and nondrug crimes; the social processes of substance use or selling;

and income sources and expenditures from both legitimate and illegal activities. A calendar was used to record time spent in treatment or detoxification programs, jails or prisons, or other institutions. For initiation, respondents were asked to describe processes of initiation into their primary drug:

how, where, and with whom did they initially use (or sell) the substance,

how much money did they spend, and the time until the next use and regular use (if any). Their expectations and reactions to the substance were

recorded through multiple response items.

Criminal career parameters were recorded through self-reports of lifetime

estimates and annual frequencies of drug use, selling, and nondrug crimes

from 1984 to the present. Specific estimates were recorded for several

types of drugs used or sold, as well as a list of 20 nondrug crimes. Items

were worded in common language, e.g., “beat someone so badly they needed to see a doctor.” A categorical scale was used to record frequencies of

specific behaviors. This was chosen in lieu of self-reports of actual numbers of crimes, to minimize distortion from the skewed distribution of

responses for the small percentage of high-rate users or offenders. The

response set represented an exponential scale frequency, with 9 categories

ranging from “1 or 2 times” to “more than 10,000.”

The social processes of substance use and selling included several types of

information. Respondents were asked whether they had sold drugs as part

of an organization and to describe their organization using dimensions

developed by Fagan (in press) in studies of drug selling among youth

gangs. Items asked for reports of their participation in specific roles in

drug selling, roles that were evident in their selling organization, and social

processes that existed within their group. For example, respondents were

asked if their group had specific prohibitions against drug use or sanctions

for rule violations. “Systemic violence” (Goldstein 1985; Goldstein 1989)

associated with drug dealing was operationally defined through eight items

with specific types of violence. Respondents were asked whether they had

experienced each of these violent events “regularly” in the course of their

selling activity.

The economic lives of respondents were described through questions on

income and expenditures. Monthly dollar amounts were reported using a

categorical scale of dollar ranges. This option was chosen over actual dollar reports to minimize distortion of dollar estimates and possible recall

problems of long-term substance users. Dollar estimates were recorded for

both legitimate and illegitimate sources of income and for expenditures both

for living costs and for drugs.

17
RESULTS

Patterns of Drug Selling

The low unit cost of crack, the absence of established crack-selling organizations at the time of its introduction in 1985, and the relative absence of

legitimate economic opportunities in the inner-city neighborhoods where

crack was marketed most heavily, made it attractive for selling both for

experienced drug sellers and newcomers. New drug-selling organizations

specializing in crack developed in response to the economic opportunities it

presented, while more established sellers added crack to an already diversified product line (Johnson et al. 1990, New York Times 1989d). Accordingly, diverse patterns of drug selling were anticipated. Table 2 shows

involvement in drug selling of four drugs over the course of respondents’

criminal and drug-use careers.

TABLE 2. Lifetime involvement in drug selling by primary drug

involvement*

Primary Drug Used or Sold

Type of Drug Sold

(“Regular” Sellers)

Cocaine

Crack HCl Heroin Polydrug significance

n=350 n=85 n=76 n=48 p (chi square)

Crack 26.1 9.4 3.9 8.3 .000

Cocaine HCI 29.8 35.7 27.6 2.1 .000

Heroin 22.0 17.6 38.2 6.3 .000

Marijuana 29.5 17.9 22.4 14.6 .022

Any Drug 46.3 43.5 46.1 22.9 .002

*Percentages exceed 100 owing to selling multiple drugs.

For each user-and-seller sample, table 2 shows the percentage that sold each

of four different substances more than 50 times in their lifetime. The percentages of crack, cocaine HCl, and heroin users involved in drug selling

were similar, but the types of drugs they sold differed according to the type

of drug used. More than half (54.6 percent) sold at least one drug. Among

crack users, about one in four (26.1 percent) sold crack, but similar percentages were involved in the sale of other drugs. For other subsamples, the

highest percentages of sellers tended to sell the primary drug used. Cocaine

HCl users rarely were involved in crack sales (fewer than 10 percent sold

crack), while over one-third (35.7 percent) sold cocaine HCl. Heroin users

most often sold heroin (38.2 percent). They rarely were involved in crack

sales, although more than one in four (27.6 percent) sold cocaine HCl

Polydrug users were less often involved in selling drugs than the other

drug-user samples.

18
The diverse patterns of drug selling from table 2 illustrate that many sellers

were involved in multiple drug selling. Accordingly, cluster analytic methods (Aldenfelder and Blashfield 1984) were used to develop a typology of

drug selling to determine if distinct patterns of selling activity could be

identified that would more accurately and sensitively describe drug-selling

behaviors. Only those respondents reporting at least 50 selling events in

their lifetimes (n=300) were included in the typology.

Typology development used the lifetime frequencies of drug selling as the

classification dimension. The categorical frequency scale was used, with

values representing an exponential frequency scale, as follows: 0 (no participation), 1 (1 or 2 times), 2 (3 to 9 times), 3 (10 to 49 times), 4 (50 to 99

times), 5 (100 to 499 times), 6 (500 to 999 times), 7 (1,000 to 10,000

times), and 8 (more than 10,000 times). An iterative partitioning method

was used to identify patterns of drug selling. Squared Euclidean distance

(Ward’s centroid method) was used as the similarity measure. A k-means

pass was used as the method to assign cases to clusters. The result was a

nonhierarchical cluster analytic solution that optimized the minimum variance within clusters.5

The six-cluster solution was chosen based on the shifts in cluster membership in successive iterations, and on its conceptual integrity (face validity).

The selling types reflect differences between sellers in the joint distributions

of selling of each of four types of drugs: heroin, crack, cocaine HCl, and

marijuana. Validation procedures relied on interpretation plus the face

validity and internal consistency of the aggregate behavioral characteristics

of each group and the total sample classification. For example, one type

specialized in heroin sales; the mean lifetime frequency of heroin sales was

highest for this group and significantly lower for the other types. The

results are shown in table 3 and figure 1.

TABLE 3. Lifetime frequency of drug selling by type of drug and

seller type

Type of Drug Sold

Cocaine

Seller Type n Crack HCl Heroin Marijuana

1. Marijuana (49) .27 1.84 .49 4.82

2. Heroin (33) .15 1.61 5.18 .12

3. Cocaine, Heroin, and Marijuana (45) .53 5.56 5.93 4.96

4. Low-Level Crack and Cocaine (93) 2.48 1.75 .34 .58

5. Crack, Cocaine, and Marijuana (54) 4.85 4.54 2.52 5.22

6. Crack, Cocaine, and Heroin (26) 4.85 5.19 5.27 1.19

ANOVA: F 99.8 44.3 151.0 156.5

p(f) .000 .000 .000 .000

19
FIGURE 1. Typology of drug selling

Table 3 and figure 1 show the distribution of cases by seller types, and the

mean frequency of lifetime selling by type of drug for each seller type.

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests for all index scores were significant

(p=.000), a confirmation of the internal validity of the classification results.

Marijuana Sellers (Type 1) appropriately have the highest mean selling frequency for marijuana. They have relatively low mean scores for crack and

heroin and moderately high scores for cocaine HCl. Heroin Sellers (Type

2) have the highest mean selling frequency for heroin, moderate mean frequency scores for cocaine HCl, and low scores for other drugs.

The other types reflect patterns of multiple drug selling. Type 3 (Cocaine

HCl, Heroin, and Marijuana) had low mean frequency scores for crack, but

high scores for the other drugs. Type 4 (Low-Level Crack Sellers) had

moderate frequency scores for crack and cocaine HCl, but low scores for

other drugs. Type 5 (Crack, Cocaine, and Marijuana) had high lifetime frequency scores for selling crack, cocaine HCl, and marijuana. They also had

moderate scores for heroin and could alternately be classified as sellers of

all drugs. Type 6 (Crack, Cocaine, and Heroin) had high scores for all

drugs other than marijuana.

20
The typology of six seller types recognizes distinct selling patterns that

capture the complexity of drug-selling behaviors, In turn, it provides a

unique basis for comparison of the social organization of drug-selling types

and a basis for interpretation of their involvement in specific varieties of

violent behaviors.

The Social Organization of Drug Selling

Prior studies of the social organization of drug selling (Adler 1985;

Williams 1989; Fagan, in press; Johnson et al. 1990; Fields 1985; Cooper

1987; Mieczkowski 1986; Meczkowski, this volume; New York Times

1989d) suggest that selling activities vary extensively according to participation in a group, as well as to the social processes, organizational structure,

and internal cohesion of the group. Few of these studies have compared

social organization among various seller types or drugs sold, nor have they

related social organization to specific behaviors of sellers. Tables 4 and 5

compare two aspects of the business structure and social processes among

sellers and within selling groups, as described by members of different seller types.

Participation in a variety of selling roles is shown in table 4. Johnson

et al. (1985) found distinct patterns of drug use and nondrug criminality

among participants in the heroin trade depending on their specific role in

drug selling. In this study, respondents were asked whether they had performed each of several types of roles, from street-level transactions to

“wholesalers” and suppliers of equipment (“sell and rent works”).6

Table 4 suggests that differences are evident in participation in each of the

seven selling roles by seller type. These differences suggest that differences

may exist in the organizational structures of drug selling according to the

type of drug sold. Type 4 (Low-Level Crack and Cocaine) sellers least

often reported involvement in formal roles and also least often reported participation in selling transactions. Similar results were apparent for Types 1

and 2, suggesting that sellers of marijuana and heroin were less often involved in drug-selling groups. Respondents in Types 3, 5, and 6 (high-rate

multiple drug selling) most often reported participation in formal drugselling roles. These findings suggest that cocaine HCl and crack selling are

more highly organized activities, with sellers more often participating in a

broader range of roles with increasing responsibility. However, the sampling strategy may have influenced these results.

Table 5 examines respondents’ reports of their participation in drug-selling

organizations or groups and examines whether their group contains each of

several specific types of social organization or processes. Participants were

asked if they had participated in a “group or gang” that sold drugs.7 Those

who indicated that they were part of a group then were asked if their group

contained any of six specific features. An index of group organization was

2 1
TABLE 4. Selling roles by type of seller (percentage of dealers in each role)*

Type of Seller

Role in Drug Selling

Marijuana Heroin

n=49 n=33

Cocaine, Crack, Crack,

Heroin, and Low Crack Cocaine, and cocaine, and

Marijuana and Cocaine Marijuana Heroin Significance

n=45 n=93 n=54 n=26 p (chi square)

Selling to Customer 89.8 87.9 97.8 78.5 100 96.2 .000

Middleman 53.1 51.5 77.8 54.8 70.4 61.5 .045

Lookout 55.1 60.6 73.3 49.5 72.2 76.9 .013

Cut, Package, or Cook 77.6 57.6 91.1 53.8 81.5 92.3 .000

Lieutenant 22.4 30.3 53.3 25.8 46.3 61.5 .000

Wholesaler 55.1 33.3 68.9 30.1 59.3 61.5 .000

Sell and Rent Works 24.5 24.2 48.9 37.6 53.7 38.5 .014

* Percentages exceed 100 due to multiple selling roles.
TABLE 5. Social organization of selling groups by type of seller (reports by sellers about their group)*

Type of Seller

Organizational Feature

Marijuana Heroin

n=49 n=33

Cocaine, Crack, Crack,

Heroin, and Low crack Cocaine, and Cocaine, and

Marijuana and Cocaine Marijuana Heroin Significance

n=45 n=93 n=54 n=26 P (chi square)

A Specific Name

Leaders and Supervisors

Rules and Sanctions

Rules Against Use While

Dealing

A Specific Territory

Kids Under 16 Selling

Percentage in Group

Group Organization Index**

89.8 87.9 97.8 78.5 100 96.2 .000

53.1 51.5 77.8 54.8 70.4 61.5 .045

55.1 60.6 73.3 49.5 72.2 76.9 .013

77.6 57.6 91.1 53.8 81.5 92.3 .000

22.4

55.1

10.2

.35

30.3

33.3

30.3

.91

53.3

68.9

24.4

1.04

25.8 46.3 61.5 .000

30.1 59.3 61.5 .000

33.3 59.3 50.0

1.29 2.54 2.12

*Percentage of group members reporting each feature.

**Mean for all seller including sellers not in group.
constructed by summing the positive responses to each of the six features.

Table 5 shows that marijuana sellers (Type 1) least often reported being

part of a selling group (10.2 percent). Between 24 and 33 percent of members of Types 2, 3, and 4 reported being in a group, while over half of

Types 5 and 6 reported being in a drug-selling group.

The types differed significantly on cross-tabulations for each dimension.

Among those reporting group participation, most said that their group had a

specific name, although Type 4 respondents had a lower rate. The findings

for the other dimensions reflected patterns similar to those in table 4. Participants in Types 1, 2, and 4 least often reported the presence of the several

features of group. Inclusively, their reports suggested that they saw their

groups as being less formally organized and having fewer unifying social

processes.

Respondents in Types 3, 5, and 6 who reported being in selling groups

most often reported the presence of formal structures or processes. Similar

patterns for these types were found for role differentiation in table 4. More

than 80 percent reported prohibitions against using drugs while selling, compared to about half in Types 2 and 4. They more often reported having

specific territory, leaders and supervisors, and formal rules and sanctions.

They also more often reported using juveniles (less than 16 years of age) in

drug selling.

The index of group organization further showed these distinctions: respondents in Types 5 and 6 reported the highest scores for group organization,

and respondents in Types 1, 2, and 3 had the lowest (p=.000). Significantly, these two types are most often involved in selling crack. Type 3 sellers,

despite their involvement in selling cocaine HCl and heroin, had lower

indices of group organization. The results suggest that crack selling is a

more formally organized activity: it more often occurs within selling

groups, and crack-selling groups more often have a formal, hierarchical

social organization.

Violence in Drug Selling

Although there is overwhelming evidence of an association between drugs

and violence, the violence that characterizes drug use or selling actually is a

heterogeneous set of behaviors. The empirical evidence of causal directions

between drug involvement and violence consistently has yielded contradictory results (Watters et al. 1985). Thus, the drug-violence connection for

now may be best understood as a probabilistic function, with uncertain

causal mechanisms or temporal order (Anglin 1984).

Goldstein (1985; Goldstein 1989) suggests that different theories may

be needed to account for different drug-crime relationships. In his tripartite framework, he distinguishes “pharmacological” violence linked to

24
psychoactive effects of drug ingestion from “economic compulsive” violence

in which drug users engage in crimes to support the costs of drug use.

“Systemic” violence is the third type of drug-crime relationship. It is

violence that is intrinsic to buying and selling any illicit substance:

. . . traditionally aggressive patterns of interaction within

the system of drug distribution and use . . . disputes over

territory between rival drug dealers, assaults and homicides

committed within dealing hierarchies as a means of enforcing normative codes, robberies of drug dealers and the

usually violent retaliation by drug dealers or their bosses,

elimination of informers, disputes over drugs and/or drug

paraphernalia, punishment for selling phony or adulterated

drugs, punishment for failing to pay for one’s debts, and

robbery violence related to the social ecology of [buying]

areas. (Goldstein 1989, p. 30)

Systemic violence was expected to be greater in crack distribution than in

other drug markets for two reasons. First, crack selling was concentrated in

neighborhoods where social controls had been weakened by intensified

social and economic dislocations in the decade preceding the emergence of

crack. Second, the rapid development of new drug-selling groups following

the introduction of crack brought with it competition. Accordingly, violence

within new selling groups internally to maintain control and violence externally to maintain selling territory and integrity (product quality) was more

likely to characterize the unstable crack markets than more established drug

markets and distribution systems. Table 6 examines the percent of respondents within types reporting “regular” systemic violence. Items were constructed to reflect the dimensions of systemic violence defined above.

For each type of systemic violence, there were significant differences in the

prevalence of regular violence. Most important, each type of systemic violence was reported most often by sellers in two of the three crack-seller

types and least often by marijuana and heroin sellers. Type 4 (Low-Level

Crack and Cocaine) sellers reported systemic violence less often than did

other crack or cocaine sellers; their reports of systemic violence closely

resemble the reports of heroin or marijuana sellers for nearly all items.

Evidently, a wide range of violent acts is intrinsic to frequent crack or

cocaine selling. For nearly all varieties of systemic violence, between 40

and 50 percent of the Type 5 and 6 respondents reported their regular

occurrence.

Sellers who worked in groups were compared with those who sold outside

any formal or informal structure for the level of systemic violence. Respondents were classified according to whether they reported that their selling activity was alone or in a group (see table 5). A scale of systemic

violence was constructed by summing responses to the eight individual

25
TABLE 6. Systemic violence by seller type (percentage reporting “regular” occurrence)

Type of Seller

Cocaine, Crack, Crack,

Heroin, and Low Crack Cocaine, and Cocaine, and

Marijuana Heroin Marijuana and Cocaine Marijuana Heroin Significance

Violence in Drug Selling n=49 n=33 n=45 n=93 n=54 n=26 p (chi square)

Fights With Rival Dealers

Assaults to Collect Debts

Fights With Other Dealers

Over Quality of Drugs

Robbery of Other Drug

Dealers

Robbery of Drug Buyers

Disputes Over Paraphernalia

Victimization While Selling

Fights With Buyers Over

Quality of Drugs

10.2 9.1 28.9 28.4 48.7 38.5

12.2 12.1 28.9 18.3 44.4 38.5

16.3 12.1 32.6 16.1 48.7 42.3

6.1 12.1 18.6 11.8 44.4 15.4 .000

12.2 6.1 23.8 8.6 33.3 23.1 .001

22.4 38.3 23.3 28.0 50.0 34.6 .028

12.2 18.2 28.9 26.9 50.0 46.2 .000

4.1 21.2 23.3 12.9 42.6 38.8 .000

.001

.000

.001
items. Table 7 reports the results of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)

routines testing differences in systemic violence scale scores for selling

alone or in a group.8

Covariates were introduced for the age of the

respondent and self-reports of monthly income from drug selling in the past

year.

TABLE 7. Analysts of variance of systemic violence by seller type and

group involvement

Seller Type

Marijuana .74 2.29

Heroin .68 2.27

Cocaine, Heroin, Marijuana .88 3.92

Low-Level Crack .91 2.19

Crack, Cocaine, Marijuana 2.65 3.84

Crack, Cocaine, Heroin 1.45 3.60

All Sellers 1.03 3.08

Sell Alone Sell in Group

n=180 n=120

NOTE: ANCOVA (Significance of F)

Main Effects: Type. p=.000, Group, p=.000; Type x Group, p=.355.

Covariates: Selling Income., p=.000; Age., p=.099.

Main effects were significant (p=.000) for both seller type and selling group

status, and there were no significant interactions. Selling income was not

a significant covariate, but age as a covariate approached significance

(p=.099). For each seller type, systemic violence was far greater among

sellers in groups. Among those who sold alone, crack and cocaine HCl sellers (Types 5 and 6) reported the highest violence scores, although Type 5

sellers had much higher violence scores. These differences were less evident for group selling. Cocaine HCl sellers (as part of multiple drug selling) had the highest systemic violence scores among sellers either alone or

in groups, regardless of whether they sold crack concurrently. It is the frequency of selling cocaine products, not just selling its smokable form, that

seems to best explain violence in drug selling.

Low-Level Crack and Cocaine Sellers (Type 4) have lower violence scores

compared to other crack sellers, in groups or alone. This suggests that frequent crack selling also may be associated with systemic violence only if it

occurs concurrently with cocaine HCl selling. Although the violence potential for selling aadc alone is quite variable, frequent selling of any cocaine

product in a group appears to be a particularly violent enterprise. This may

reflect exposure during group dealing to individuals and situations for which

27
violence is commonplace or a self-selection process that determines who

becomes involved in drug-dealing groups. It also may reflect the importance of violence as a regulatory and management strategy within selling

groups in which both internal discipline and maintenance of market share

are required.

The relationship between participation in a selling group and systemic violence, shown in table 7, suggests that crack or cocaine HCl selling in

groups involves greater involvement in systemic violence. Table 5 shows

that the social organization of crack-selling groups is better developed than

other groups. Accordingly, systemic violence is more evident both in group

sellng of cocaine products and in groups with stronger social organization.

Compared to group or individual sellers of heroin or marijuana, the selling

groups that have developed in the crack market appear to have a stronger

social organization and are more likely to engage in a wider range of violent acts within the social and economic boundaries of drug transactions.

Drug Selling, Drug Use, and Nondrug Crimes

If systemic violence is part of a general pattern of intentional law violations, then violence that occurs outside the context of drug selling should be

distributed similarly to violence within those contexts. However, if systemic

violence is a form of social control and regulatory behavior, then the distribution of systemic violence should differ from the distribution of nondrug

violent acts. Moreover, since crack-selling groups developed rapidly and

often in the absence of an existing market structure, systemic violence was

expected to be greater among crack sellers than others. The previous sec

tion confirmed this belief. If these differences for crack sellers were not

evident in other forms of violence, then systemic violence among crack sellers might be interpreted as an economic behavior and a form of social control. If crack sellers also are more often involved in violence outside the

selling context, however, then systemic violence and other violence might

be interpreted as indicative of part of a generalized pattern of intensified

criminal behaviors among people involved in crack.

Respondents were asked to indicate their lifetime involvement in each of 11

nondrug crimes, using a categorical response set for frequencies, using the

previously described exponential scale (p. 19). ANOVA routines compared

lifetime frequencies by seller type, controlling for group involvement in

drug selling. Means for nonsellers are presented in the table, but were not

included in the analyses. Age, group cohesion, and selling income were

introduced as covariates.

Table 8 shows that significant effects (p=.05 or leas) by seller type were

obtained for 5 of the 11 crime categories: robbery of persons, breaking and

entering, auto theft, weapons offenses, and selling stolen goods. Results

approached significance (p=.07) for three other categories: robbery of

28
TABLE 8. Analysis of variance of nondrug crimes by seller type and group selling*
businesses, aggravated assault, and grand theft. In nearly all of these

offense categories, lifetime frequencies were lowest for nonsellers and Type

1 and 2 sellers (sellers of other than cocaine products). Lifetime criminality

was significantly higher for Type 3, 5, and 6 sellers in nearly all the offense categories in which the F-value was significant. These seller types

were sellers of multiple drugs, including cocaine products. The trends also

suggest that differences between seller types are less evident for less serious

offenses: fighting, shoplifting, and petty theft.

For nearly all offense categories and seller types, group sellers had greater

lifetime involvement than individual sellers. Significant interactions were

obtained only for grand theft: individual sellers in Types 1, 2, and 3 had

higher lifetime involvement than group sellers, but the opposite trend was

found in Types 4, 5, and 6. Inspection of the means for nonsellers shows

that their involvement in nondrug crimes was substantially less than either

individual or group sellers.

Covariate effects for age were significant for several crime categories:

business robbery, breaking and entering, shoplifting, weapons offenses, and

selling stolen goods. Age was not significant in crimes of physical aggression, nor in person robbery. Group organization was a significant covariate

in business robbery, person robbery, assault, weapons offenses, and selling

stolen goods. Selling income was a significant covariate only for weapons

offenses and selling stolen goods.

The results clearly show that involvement in nondrug violent crimes is

greater for sellers of cocaine products, especially for those groups with

more well-articulated organizations. Unlike the evidence on systemic violence, however, there appear to be minimal differences between Types 5

and 6 (crack sellers) and the Type 3 noncrack cocaine sellers. This suggests that participation in multiple drug-selling groups, rather than simply

crack-selling groups, is associated with involvement in a wide variety of

crimes and, specifically, violence. The influence of group social organization on nondrug violence is consistent with its influence on systemic violence. Evidently, participation in a well-organized drug-selling group is

strongly associated with involvement in violence in a variety of circumstances and contexts.

The effects of initiation into drug selling on specific forms of aggression

also were compared by seller type, including nonsellers. Respondents were

presented with a series of six items describing specific forms of aggression

and one item about victimization from violence and asked whether their

involvement had increased, decreased, or remained the same following initiation into crack use or selling. The percent of respondents reporting either

increases or decreases is shown in table 9.

30
TABLE 9. Self-reported changes in specific forms of violence by seller type after initiation into primary drug

Type of Seller (Percentage Reporting Change)

Cocaine, Crack, Crack,

Specific Forms Heroin, and Low Crack Cocaine, and Cocaine, and Significance

of Violence Nonsellers Marijuana Heroin Marijuana and Cocaine Marijuana Heroin p (chi square)

Stabbing .119

Involved Less 1.6 4.2 3.0 9.3 2.2 5.6 3.8

Involved More 2.8 6.3 3.0 2.3 3.2 9.3 7.7

Shootings .000

Involved Less 0.4 2.0 6.1 11.6 4.3 11.1 11.5

Involved More 0.8 2.0 0 4.7 4.3 7.4 3.8

Assaults or Beatings .000

Involved Less 2.4 10.4 12.1 11.6 5.4 22.2 7.7

Involved Mae 4.7 8.3 6.1 7.0 10.8 9.3 15.4

Fighting .001

Involved Less 5.9 12.2 24.2 28.6 9.7 24.1 7.7

Involved More 13.8 18.4 12.1 14.3 29.0 29.6 13.8

Robberies .000

Involved Less 3.6 12.2 6.1 30.2 8.6 16.7 15.4

Involved Mote 12.3 16.3 21.2 14.0 20.4 35.2 23.1

Injuring Someone .199

Involved Less 1.2 6.1 0 9.3 4.3 3.7 3.8

Involved More 6.7 4.1 6.1 2.3 6.5 7.4 11.5

Injured by Someone .012

Involved Less 4.3 10.2 9.1 16.3 10.8 18.9 7.7

Involved More 11.0 16.3 18.2 7.0 14.0 20.8 30.8
Significant differences were found for four of the six violent acts: shooting,

assault, fighting, and personal robbery. Among nonsellers, increases were

reported more often than decreases for all acts. Type 3 (Cocaine, Heroin,

and Marijuana) sellers report only decreases. Shootings decreased more

often among all seller types, a surprise given the higher levels of systemic

violence associated with three of the seller types. Among Type 5 and 6

sellers, more respondents reported increases than decreases in robberies,

stabbings, and injuring someone. Thus, violence more often increased than

decreased among most crack and cocaine sellers after initiation into drug

use. Since the onset of drug use preceded selling for most sellers (Fagan

and Chin, in press), it seems that violence potentials may have preceded

involvement in selling.

Finally, drug-use patterns among sellers and nonsellers were analyzed.

Recent evidence on drug selling in inner cities found that selling groups

prohibited drug use among their members, especially during business hours

(Chin 1986; Cooper 1987; Mieczkowski 1986; Williams 1989). Vigil

(1988) reported that Chicano gang members in East Los Angeles rejected

heroin users from the gang, believing that a gang member could not maintain loyalty to the gang and to his or her addiction at the same time.

Others (Fagan 1989) found that drug use and dealing were intrinsic to gang

Life. Studies of drug dealers found that they “drift” into dealing from their

participation in drug-using circles, rather than suddenly entering into dealing

from outside drug cultures or scenes (Adler 1985; Murphy et al. 1989).

Among this sample, table 5 showed that at least half of the respondents in

each seller type reported prohibitions against drug use while dealing. Accordingly, variation in drug-use patterns was anticipated. Crack sellers,

whose organizations seemed to be well articulated, were expected to have

relatively low drug use. Other seller types, whose organizations were less

formal, were expected to report greater involvement in drug use. Respondents were asked to report their lifetime frequency of substance use for 15

substances. Since multiple drug-use patterns are commonplace among highrate drug users, factor analyses were used to identify distinct underlying

trends in drug use. Four factors were identified, accounting’ for 60.2 percent of the variance: intravenous (IV) heroin and cocaine use, cocaine (and

crack) smoking or snorting, oral stimulant and depressant use (pills, psychedelic drugs), and marijuana and alcohol use. The factor coefficients and

statistics are shown in table 10. The factor scores were retained and used

for comparisons of drug use among seller types.

ANCOVA routines compared factor score means for each of these four dimensions of substance use by seller type. Means factor scores for nonsellers are shown, although they were excluded from the analyses. To test

for the influence of group participation, a second independent variable for

group selling was included. Covariates for age also were included. Table

11 shows that significant differences by seller type were evident for all

32
TABLE 10. Rotated factor coefficients for lifetime frequency of drug use

Heroin and Cocaine and Uppers and Alcohol and

Type of Drug Cocaine IV Crack Smokers Downers Marijuana

Crack -.121 .781 -.004 -.056

Cocaine-Snorting .252 555 -.014 388

Speedball (IV) .896 -.055 .108 .030

Cocaine IV .846 -.035 .186 -.051

Cocaine-Freebase .072 .829 .113 .101

Heroin IV .903 -.041 .120 .068

Heroin-Snorting .716 .093 .025 .163

Methadone .788 -.020 .161 -.094

Marijuana -.060 .032 .061 .795

PCP -.144 .486 .329 .057

LSD .056 .239 .645 .256

Speed, Uppers .089 .108 .823 .117

Barbiturates, Downers .434 .039 .666 -.027

Other Drugs .089 -.017 .392 .021

Alcohol -.003 .099 .188 .662

Eigenvalue 4.19 2.53 1.26 1.05

% Variance Explained 27.9 16.9 8.4 7.0

dimensions of drug use except pill use. Group status was significant only

for cocaine smoking and snorting. There were no significant interactions,

and age covariates were significant only for the IV-drug-use dimension.

Drug-use patterns tended to reflect seller type, especially for individual

sellrs. The highest factor score means for heroin sellers were for IV drug

use, for marijuana sellers were for marijuana use, and for cocaine or crack

sellers were for cocaine smoking or snorting. There were small differences

in cocaine use between individual and group sellers for Type 5 and 6 crack

sellers. But cocaine use among Type 4 cocaine sellers in groups appeared

to be substantially lower than among individual sellers. This may reflect

organizational rules or norms opposing substance use.

IV drug use was evident only in those groups in which heroin was sold and

was most evident in Type 3 and 4 individual sellers. Type 6 sellers (crack

and other drugs) in groups had the highest factor scores for illicit pill use.

Type 4 and 5 crack sellers avoided IV drug use, suggesting that they did

not inject cocaine despite their high involvement in smoking or snorting it.

For all four types of substance use, nonsellers were less often involved than

were sellers, regardless of whether they sold individually or in groups. Illicit pill use among marijuana sellers was the only drug use greater for individual than for group sellers.

33
TABLE 11. Analysis of variance of drug use factor scores by seller type and group selling, controlling for age*
Table 11 suggests that drug use and selling jointly occur within the social

worlds of specific drugs. There was little evidence that sellers avoided

using the drugs that they sold, in fact, they tended to have the greatest use

of those drugs they sold. Only among group cocaine and heroin sellers

(Type 4) was there evidence of avoidance of use of the drug they marketed.

IV drug use was confined to specific groups that also sold heroin, and these

groups tended to avoid cocaine smoking or snorting. Cocaine smoking and

snorting was evident among the groups that sold crack plus among individual Type 4 sellers.

Despite the high proportion of sellers that reported prohibitions against use

while selling, many sellers also used drugs. Evidently, these prohibitions

did not extend to personal recreational use, or they were ineffective. Use

and dealing appear to be reciprocally related, with access to the substance

and immersion in a drug-specific social network likely contributors to the

drug-specific patterns. Substance use appears equally likely regardless of

whether selling occurs alone or in groups. The provocative image of the

well-disciplined dealer, whose motivations are exclusively financial and who

abstains from drug use to maximize his or her dealing skills, has no

grounding in these data. Drug sellers also are drug users, and their efforts

as dealers and behaviors as users apparently overlap extensively.

CONCLUSION

Young crack sellers have been portrayed in the popular literature as young

entrepreneurs, highly disciplined and coldly efficient in their business activities, often using violence selectively and instrumentally in the service of

profits. An ethos that rejects drug use also has been attributed to new,

young crack sellers, especially those in groups, whose interest is not drug

use but the material wealth that rewards the most efficient seller. Crackselling groups have been described in the popular media as emerging organized crime groups, with nationwide networks of affiliates and franchises to

distribute drugs (Newsweek 1986). This image tends to attribute the spread

of crack use in urban areas to a conspiracy involving cocaine importers,

nascent organized crime groups, and youth gangs from the inner cities of

the major cocaine importation areas. This study suggests that none of these

stereotypes appear to be true.

Crack sellers are violent more often than other drug sellers. Further, their

violence is not confined to the drug-selling context. Compared to other

drug sellers and nonsellers, they more often are involved in a wide range of

serious nondrug crimes, including both property and violent offenses. They

also are involved in patterns of multiple drug use. Like other drug sellers,

they most often use the drugs that they sell and avoid others that may be

unfamiliar. Drug-use patterns of both crack and other drug sellers suggest

that drug use and dealing occur within distinct but parallel social worlds

that are characterized by generic social and economic processes.

35
Violence in drug selling may be interpreted as part of a generalized pattern

of crime and violence or as an economic behavior that reflects aspects of

social control, good business strategy, and self-help. Certainly, the evidence

on systemic violence within crack-selling groups suggests that they are more

likely to employ violence both for organizational maintenance and as a strategic weapon in economic competition. However, crack sellers also are

more likely to be involved in a wide range of law violations as well as

regular drug use. The diversity and frequency of nondrug crimes suggests

that crack sellers’ behaviors are neither moralistic acts nor crimes in the

pursuit of justice. That is, these appear to be neither crimes of social control nor self-help. In fact, their patterns of drug use and crime suggest a

pattern of spuriously related behaviors indicative of a generalized pattern of

deviance. Drug use, drug selling, and violence were evident among all seller types. Compared to other drug sellers, crack sellers simply seem to be

more deeply immersed in generic social processes of drug use, violence,

and other crimes.

Accordingly, both views seem appropriate. Like other offenders, drug sellers exhibit versatility in their patterns of violence and other crimes (Klein

1984). Crack and cocaine HCl sellers are more likely than other sellers to

use violence for economic regulation and control, but are also more likely

to use violence in other contexts. Violence among crack sellers may reflect

either processes of social selection or the contingencies of the social settings

in which crack selling is concentrated. These distinctions cannot be sorted

out in these data, and perhaps they are reciprocal processes that cannot be

disentangled. Nevertheless, the results suggest common pathways to drug

use, drug selling, and nondrug crimes. For many sellers of cocaine products, crack has been integrated into behaviors that were evident before their

involvement with crack or its appearance on New York City streets.

If violence is both intrinsic to drug selling and, in urban areas, part of a

generalized pattern of deviance, then the patterns of violence within drug

selling are specific applications of behaviors that also occur in other contexts. Thus, it would be unwise to conclude that the drug business makes

people violent or that people are violent in the context of drug selling but

not elsewhere. Drug selling is etiologically related to violence, but only

because violence is intrinsic to drug selling. It is more likely that drug

selling provides a context that facilitates violence, in which violence is

acceptable given the illicit nature of drug selling and the absence of other

forms of legal recourse or social control.

Nevertheless, crack sellers more often are involved in violence and drug

use. The crack market apparently has intensified the social processes that

sustain both drug-related and other violence. Crack has evolved in a specific and economic social context, in which social and economic transformations have altered the formal and informal controls that previously had

36
shaped violent behaviors. Also, factors unique to crack distribution apparently contribute to the increased violence.

The expansion of illicit drug sales in New York City has paralleled the

decrease in legitimate economic opportunities in this decade. Participation

in the informal economy has increased, especially among minorities living

in neighborhoods where the demand for goods and services in the informal

economy rivals participation in the formal economy (Sassen-Koob 1989).

In the volatile crack markets, crack sometimes has become a “currency of

the realm,” a liquid asset with cash value that has been bartered for sex,

food, or other goods (Inciardi, in press; Williams 1989). Sellers or users

with large amounts become targets for “take offs” by either other sellers or

users wanting the drug. In turn, violence as self-defense is a common

theme and an essential element in controlling situations in which large

volumes of crack are present (Bourgois 1989).

Johnson et al. (in press) suggest that there is a process of self-selection and

social selection of violent persons in the crack trade that accounts for higher

levels of violence than in previous drug epidemics. These people are used

both to maintain internal discipline in drug-selling groups and as combatants

in territorial disputes. Hamid (1990) attributes increases in violence associated with crack to the erosion of formal and informal social controls in

neighborhoods whose human, social, and economic capital has been depleted

over the past two decades. High rates of residential mobility and declining

capital investment have contributed to an ecology of violence in several

inner-city areas. The emergence of a volatile crack market perhaps has

benefitted from these processes and intensified them. The participation of

generally violent offenders in the crack trade, coupled with decreased controls and increased crime opportunities in socially fragmented areas, may

account for the increased violence in the crack market.

If street-level drug sellers, in general, and crack sellers, in particular, exhibit

behaviors that are part of a generalized pattern of deviance, then the characterization of crack-selling networks as a new organized crime menace has

disillusioned the public as to appropriate social policies. If these new organizations are responsible for drug selling and its attendant violence, then

it is difficult to explain the unlimited flow of new people who are selling

drugs. Policies that seek sources of conspiratorial decisions to sell drugs

risk the danger of reifying the image of drug dealers as cold businessmen

and entrepreneurs and rejecting debate on other policies that might address

the entry of young men and women into drug selling and a wide range of

violent behaviors. If violence and drug selling in the crack market reflect

the social and economic disorganization of the neighborhoods where crack

selling is concentrated, then policy should reflect sensible thinking about

how to strengthen social areas to control crimes, stop the production of

violent offenders, and mitigate crime-producing conditions.

37
FOOTNOTES

1. Adler points out that, although violence was rare in the drug-selling

scenes she observed, it was always in the background as an implied

threat in lieu of legal recourse to mediate business disputes.

2. McGeary and Lynn (1988) comprehensively reviewed the economic restructuring of American inner cities over the past 20 years.

3. The definition of social control used here is similar to the processes described by Black (1983) and refers to the processes that people use to

respond to deviant or antagonistic behaviors. These. may include verbal

expressions of disapproval or threats or sanctions that may either punish

or incapacitate. Self-help refers to responses to aggression or threat.

4. Belenko et al. (in press) analyzed arrest patterns for sack offenses.

5. This approach to grouping subjects used their relative proximity in a

specified dimensional space. The nonhierarchical centroid method was

less useful than the hierarchical models as a heuristic tool, as it displayed neither agglomerative nor divisive linkages (dendograms). However, this weakness was addressed by running sequential solutions that

specified cluster sizes from three to seven. Comparisons of each successive iteration approximated a divisive hierarchical analysis.

This classificatory procedure posed no question of statistical significance

in the derivation procedure. The clusters were a heuristic tool that was

instructive for partitioning drug sellers into groups for descriptive and

analytic purposes. The types should be interpreted cautiously, however,

as the procedure is sensitive to shifts in sample composition.

6. Johnson et al. (1985) defined each type of role. These definitions were

read aloud to respondents during the interview.

7. Participants in New York City refer to their groups as “crews,”

“posses,” or other terms specific to locales or ethnicity of the members.

Such groups are distinct from groups of street-comer youths or youth

gangs, in that drug-selling activities provide the rationale for group

affiliation. They also may be polyethnic groups, unlike the ethnic or

neighborhood affiliations common in youth gangs. Williams (1989)

described “crews” in New York, and Klein et al. (in press) described

the confluence of drug selling and “traditional” youth gangs in Los

Angeles.

8. ANCOVA procedures first considered covariate effects in descending

order of their F scores and adjusted the main effects and interactions for

effects of covariates.

38
REFERENCES

Adler, P.A. Wheeling and Dealing: An Ethnography of an Upper-Level

Dealing and Smuggling Community. New York: Columbia University

Press, 1985.

Aldenfelder, M.S., and Blashfield, R.K. Cluster Analysis. Beverly Hills,

CA: Sage Publications, 1984.

Anglin, M.D. A review of alcohol, drugs, and aggression. J Stud Alcohol

35(5):469-490, 1984.

Ball, J.C.; Schaeffer, J.C.; and Nurco, D.N. The day-today criminality of

heroin addicts in Baltimore: A study in the continuity of offense rates.

Drug Alcohol Depend 12:119-142, 1983.

Belenko, S.; Fagan, J.; and Chin, K. Criminal justice responses to crack.

J Res Crime Delinqency 21(1), in press.

Biemacki, P., and Waldorf, D. Snowball sampling: problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociol Meth Res 10:141-163, 1981.

Black, D. Crime as social control. Am Social Rev 48:34-45, 1983.

Bourgois, P. In search of Horatio Alger: Culture and ideology in the

crack economy. Contemp Drug Probl 16(4):619-650, 1989.

Chin, Ko-Lin. Chinese Triad Societies, Tongs, Organized Crime, and Street

Gangs in Asia and the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Department of Sociology, University of Pennsylvania, 1986.

Cooper, B.M. Motor City breakdown. Village Voice, December 1, 1987.

pp. 23-35.

Fagan, J. The social organization of drug use and drug dealing among

urban gangs. Criminology 27(4):633-670, 1989.

Fagan, J., and Chin, K. Initiation into crack and cocaine: A tale of two

epidemics. Contemp Drug Probl 16(4):579-618, 1989.

Fagan, J., and Chin, K. Social processes of initiation into crack use and

dealing. J Drug Issues, in press.

Farley, J.E. Disproportionate Black and Hispanic unemployment in U.S.

metropolitan areas. Am J Econ Sociol 46(2):129-150 1987.

Farley, R., and Allen, W.R. The Color Line and the Quality of Life in

America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1987.

Fields, A.J. Weedslingers: Young black marijuana dealers. In: Beschner,

G., and Friedman, AS., eds. Teen Drug Use. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1985. pp. 85-104.

Frank, B.; Hopkins, W.; and Lipton, D.S. Current drug use trends in New

York City. Albany: New York State Division of Substance Abuse Services, June 1987.

Goldstein, P.J. The drugs-violence nexus: A tripartite conceptual framework. J Drug Issues 15:493-506, 1985.

Goldstein, P.J. Drugs and violent crime. In: Weiner, N.A., and Wolfgang,

M.E., eds. Pathways to Criminal Violence. Newbury Park, CA: Russell

Sage Foundation, 1989. pp. 16-48.

39
Goldstein, P.J.; Belluci, P.A.; Spunt, B.J.; and Miller, T. Frequency of cocaine use and violence: A comparison between men and women. New

York: Narcotic and Drug Research Inc. Unpublished manuscript.

Goldstein, P.J.; Brownstein, H.H.; Ryan, P.; and Belluci, P.A. Crack and

homicide in New York City, 1989: A conceptually based event analysis.

Contemp Drug Probl, in press.

Goldstein, P.J.; Lipton, D.S.; Preble, E.; Sobel, I.; Miller, T.; Abbott, W.;

Paige, W.; and Soto, F. The marketing of street heroin in New York

City. J Drug Issues 14:553-566, 1984.

Goldstein, P.J.; Lipton, D.S.; Spunt, B.J.; Belluci, P.A.; Miller, T.; Cortex,

N.; Khan, M.; and Kale, A. Drug Related Involvement in Violent Episodes. Final Report, grants DA 03182 and DA 04017, National Institute

on Drug Abuse. New York: Narcotic and Drug Research Inc., 1987.

Hamid, A. The Political economy of crack-related violence. Contemp Drug

Probl 17(1):31-78, 1990.

Hochschild, J.L. Equal opportunity and the estranged poor. Ann Am Acad

Political Soc Sci 501:143-155, 1989.

Hopkins, W. Street perspectives on drug use. Presented at the Conference

on Drug Abuse Prevention, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New

York, NY, April 7, 1989.

Ianni, F.A.J. Black Mafia: Ethnic Succession in Organized Crime. New

York: Simon and Schuster, 1974.

Inciardi, J.A. Beyond cocaine: Basuco, crack, and other coca products.

Contemp Drug Probl 14(3):461-492, 1987.

Inciardi, J.A. Sex for crack: A research note. Contemp Drug Probl

16(4):689-702, 1989.

Johnson, B.D.; Goldstein, P.J.; Preble, E.; Schmeidler, J.; Lipton, D.; Spunt,

B.; and Miller, T. Taking Care of Business: The Economics of Crime

by Heroin Abusers. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1985.

Johnson, B.D.; Williams, T.; Dei, K.; and Sanabria, H. Drug abuse and the

inner city: Impacts of hard drug use and sales on low income communities. In: Wilson, J.Q., and Tonry, M., eds. Crime and Justice: An

Annual Review of Research. Vol. 13. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1990. pp. 9-67.

Kasarda, J.D. Jobs, migration and emerging urban mismatches. In:

McGeary, M.G.H., and Lynn, LE., eds. Urban Change and Poverty.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1988. pp. 148-198.

Kasarda, J.D. Urban industrial transition and the underclass. Ann Am Acad

Political Soc Sci 501:26-47, 1989.

Klein, M.W. Offense specialization and versatility among juveniles. Br J

Criminol 24:185-194, 1984.

Klein, M.W.; Maxson, C.; and Cunningham, L Street gang involvement in

rock cocaine selling. Final report to the National Institute of Justice,

grant 85-IJ-CX-0057. Los Angeles: UCLA Social Science Institute, 1988.

40
Kozel, N.J., and Adams, E.H., eds. Cocaine Use in America: Epidemiological and Clinical Perspectives. National Institute on Drug Abuse

Research Monograph 61. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)85-1414. Washington,

DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1985.

Massey, D.S., and Eggers, M.L. The ecology of inequality: Minorities and

the concentration of poverty, 1970-1980. Am J Sociol 95(5):1153-1188,

1990.

McBride, D.C. Drugs and violence. In: Inciardi, J.A., ed. The DrugCrime Connection Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981. pp. 105-124.

McGeary, M.C.H., and Lynn, L.E., eds. Urban Change and Poverty.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1988.

Mieczkowski, T. Geeking up and throwing down: Heroin street life in

Detroit. Criminology 24(4):645-666, 1986.

Mienkowski, T. Crack distribution in Detroit. Contemp Drug Probl, in

press.

Murphy, S.; Waldorf, D.; and Reinarman, C. Drifting into dealing: Becoming a cocaine seller. San Francisco: Institute for Scientific Analysis.

Unpublished manuscript.

Musto, D. An American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control. 2d ed.

New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.

Newsweek. Kids and Cocaine. March 17, 1986. pp. 58-68.

New York Times. Crack: A Disaster of Historic Dimensions, Still Growing. March 28, 1989a. p. A20.

New York Times. Report from the Field on an Endless War. March 12,

1989b. Section 4, p. 1.

New York Times. Selling Milk, Bread, and Cocaine in New York. March

30, 1989c. p. Al.

New York Times. Detroit Drug Empire Showed All the Traits of Big Business. December 18, 1989d. p. Al. .

New York Times. Even with TNT, New York City Can’t Destroy Drug

Bazaars. June 1, 1989e. p. Al.

Sampson, R.J. Crime in cities: The effects of formal and informal social

control. In: Reiss, A.J., Jr., and Tonry, M., eds. Communities and

Crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986. pp. 271-310.

Sampson, R.J. Urban black violence: The effect of male joblessness and

family disruption. Am J Sociol 93(2):348-382, 1987.

Sassen-Koob, S. New York City’s Informal Economy. In: Portes, A.;

Castells, M.; and Benton, L.A., eds. The Informal Economy: Studies in

Advanced and Less Developed Countries. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

University Press, 1989. pp. 60-77.

Siegel, R.K.Cocaine free base abuse: A new smoking disorder. J Psychoactive Drugs 14:321-337, 1982.

Siegel, R.K. New patterns of cocaine use: Changing doses and routes. In:

Kozel, N.J., and Adams, E.H., eds. Cocaine Use in America: Epidemiological and Clinical Perspectives. National Institute on Drug Abuse

Research Monograph 61. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)85-1414. Washington,

DC: Supt. of Does., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1985.

4 1
Siegel, R.K. Cocaine smoking: Nature and extent of coca paste and cocaine freebase abuse. In: Washton, A.M., and Gold, M., eds. Cocaine:

A Clinician’s Handbook New York: Guilford Press, 1987. pp. 175-191.

Spitz, H.I., and Rosecan, J.S. Cocaine reconceptualized: Historical overview. In: Spitz, H.I., and Rosecan, J.S., eds. Cocaine Abuse: New

Directions in Treatment and Research New York: Brunner-Mazel, 1987.

pp. 5-18.

Tienda, M. Neighborhood effects and the formation of the underclass. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association,

San Francisco, CA, August 1989a.

Tienda, M. Puerto Ricans and the underclass debate. Ann Am Acad Political Soc Sci 501:105-119, 1989b.

Vigil, J.D. Barrio Gangs. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1988.

Wacquant, L.D., and Wilson, W.J. The costs of racial and class exclusion

in the inner city. Ann Am Acad Political Soc Sci 501:8-25, 1989.

Waldorf, O.D. Final report of the ex-sellers project: An explanatory study

of indirect criminal justice pressures on cocaine sellers. National Institute

of Justice grant 89-IJ-CX-0036. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, 1989.

Waldorf, O.D.; Reinarman, C.; and Murphy, S. Cocaine Changes. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990.

Washton, A., and Gold, M. Recent trends in cocaine abuse as seen from

the “800-Cocaine Hotline.” In: Washton, A.M., and Gold, M., eds.

Cocaine: A Clinician’s Handbook. New York: Guilford Press, 1987.

pp. 10-22.

Watters, J.K.; Reinarman, C.; Fagan, J. Causality, context and contingency:

Relationships between drug abuse and delinquency. Contemporary Drug

Problems 12(3):351-373, 1985.

Williams, T. The Cocaine Kids. New York: Addison-Wesley, 1989.

Zahn, M. Homicide in the Twentieth Century: Trends, types and causes.

In: Gurr T.R., ed. Violence in America, Volume I: The History of

Crime. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1989, pp. 216-234.

Zimmer, L. Operation Pressure Point. Occasional Paper of the Center for

Research on Crime and Delinquency, New York University School of

Law. New York: New York University School of Law, 1987.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Support for this research was provided by U.S. Department of Justice grant

87-IJ-CX-0064, “Changing Patterns of Drug Abuse and Criminality among

Crack Users,” from the National Institute of Justice. The opinions are those

of the authors and do not reflect the policies or views of the U.S. Department of Justice. Bruce Johnson, Ph.D., and Eloise Dunlap, Ph.D., both

with Narcotic and Drug Research, Inc., are acknowledged for their critical

contributions to the design of this research and the difficult data collection

effort.

42
AUTHORS

Jeffrey Fagan, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

School of Criminal Justice

Rutgers—The State University of New Jersey

15 Washington Street

Newark, NJ 07102

Ko-lin Chin, Ph.D.

Senior Research Analyst

New York City Criminal Justice Agency

305 Broadway

New York, NY 10007

43
Violence Associated With Acute

Cocaine Use in Patients Admitted

to a Medical Emergency

Department

Steven L. Brody

INTRODUCTION

Cocaine abuse has been an increasing public health concern over the past

decade. In the early 1980s, medical attention focused on dramatic cocaine

associated complications, including myocardial infarction, stroke, and sudden

death (Cregler and Mark 1986). That attention broadened in the latter half

of the 1980s as social and economic conditions were marked by an explosion in interpersonal violence and violent crimes, including “cocaine related”

homicides (Johnson et al. 1987; Harruff et al. 1988) and assaults, to include

an investigation of the psychopharmacologic effects of cocaine (Gawin and

Ellinwood 1988; Davis and Gold 1988; Johanson and Fischman 1989).

Medical, trauma, and psychiatric visits to hospitals continued to rise, and,

by 1988, data from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Drug

Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) indicated that cocaine was the most frequently mentioned illicit substance involved in emergency department (ED)

visits and in medical examiner reports on drug-related deaths (National

Institute on Drug Abuse 1989). Consequently, many researchers are beginning to explore one of the most challenging aspects of the cocaine abuse

problem--the relation between cocaine use and violence-a complex issue

that includes social, economic, and medical factors.

One of the most comprehensive explanations of the relations between drug

use and violence is the tripartite scheme developed by Goldstein (1986;

Goldstein et al. 1988). In this analysis, one dimension leading to violence

is termed “systemic,” which is related to drug distribution and trafficking.

A second is “economic compulsive,” which describes the violence associated

with acquisition of money to purchase drugs and includes muggings and

property crimes. A third factor is “psychopharmacologic,” or violent

44
behavior induced by effects of the drug. Clearly, there are situations in

which these factors may overlap, and some factors may be more important

with different drugs of abuse. Based on careful interview data, Goldstein

concluded that much of the cocaine-related violence in his research was

psychopharmacologic in nature.

A number of recent studies have suggested a link between the pharmacologic effects of cocaine and violent behavior. A study of callers to a

national telephone “hotline” for cocaine, which examined medical complications in self-referred cocaine abusers, found that 27 percent of adolescent

cocaine abusers had episodes of violent behaviors during cocaine use

(Roehrich and Cold 1988). Wetli and Fishbain (1985) described seven cocaine users who developed violent and assaultive behavior associated with

intense paranoia and psychosis secondary to severe cocaine intoxication.

More compelling data comes from a study of hospitalized patients with cocaine psychosis during the “freebase” cocaine epidemic in the Bahamas in

1984 (Jekel et al. 1986). Analysis of this study by Manschreck et al.

(1988) revealed that violent behavior was a key presenting feature in

55 percent of the psychotic patients and 36 percent of the nonpsychotic

cocaine users. Another group of researchers examining psychiatric emergency room patients in New York City with acute cocaine intoxication suggested that smokable cocaine, in the form of freebase or “crack” cocaine,

was an important factor in violent behavior (Honer et al. 1987), yet others

found no difference between route of use and violent behavior (Brower

et al. 1988).

In contrast to these findings, other investigators have not found a relationship between cocaine use and violent crime (Collins et al. 1988; Kozel and

DuPont 1977). Collins’ group used urine drug testing to identify recent

users within 24 hours of arrest. They concluded that newly jailed cocaine

users were less likely to be arrested for committing violent crimes, compared to those who did not abuse drugs at all. Further, Fagan et al. (this

volume) found that most violent criminal behavior among drug users was

systemic, that is, related directly to the business of drug distribution rather

than to drug use.

Animal studies of the effects of cocaine on aggressive and violent behavior

are equivocal, and studies are difficult to compare, as a variety of models

are used. As a psychomotor stimulant, cocaine increases locomotor activity

and stereotypy at higher doses (George 1989). Relative to violent behavior,

investigators have reported that fighting in mice increases as cocaine dose

increases (Hadfield 1982). In contrast, other researchers, using different

designs, have observed that attack behavior and aggressiveness decreases as

dose is increased (Miczek 1977; Kantak 1989). Perhaps the most exciting

area of investigation in the study of animal behavior is of specific neurochemical effects, primarily alterations in central dopamine transmission, and

correlations with behavioral changes (Johanson and Fischman 1989). In

45
spite of the growing body of research linking cocaine to violence and

aggressive behavior, much remains poorly understood. Data supporting the

hypothesis that a direct psychopharmacologic effect of cocaine leads to violent behavior is limited by a paucity of observations of acutely intoxicated

users and the problems inherent in performing human studies with a drug

known to be highly toxic with often unpredictable effects. The purpose of

this chapter is to describe a group of patients who presented to a medical

ED (MED) with violent and aggressive behavior associated with acute

cocaine use. While largely observational, this information may help to

explain one facet of the complex relationship between cocaine use and

violence.

METHODS

Patients described in this study were seen over a 2-year period between

August 1986 and August 1988. All patients were seen at the MED of

Grady Memorial Hospital, the major provider of indigent care in Atlanta,

GA. The MED has over 65,000 patient visits per year and is the primary

unit for the acute management of drug-abuse-related problems. Other areas

within the hospital that provide emergency care include a surgical-trauma

area, a gynecology-obstetrics unit, a pediatric emergency department, and a

psychiatric crisis clinic.

Patients with cocaine-related violent behavior admitted to the MED were

pooled from two separate patient data bases that had been used for previous

studies. One patient set (A) was a consecutive series of 223 patients who

visited the MED witb cocaine-related problems over a 6-month period between August 1986 and February 1987 (Brody et al., in press). In this

study, the medical records of all patients with the term “cocaine” in the

MED record were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were also taken from a

second data base (B) that was a nonconsecutive series of 29 patients with

cocaine-associated rhabdomyolysis (a clinical and laboratory syndrome resulting from skeletal muscle injury and the release of cell contents into the

blood) who came to the MED between January 1987 and August 1988.

In each of these studies, records were made of demographic information,

including patient age and sex, details of drug use, including route of use

and frequency; specific medical complaints; physical examination findings;

laboratory data, including toxicologic data; management, including acute

drug therapy; and patient outcome.

Data from these two studies were examined for inclusion in the present

study if there was information in the MED record documenting violent

or aggressive behavior associated with the ED visit. Criteria for violent or

aggressive behavior included evidence of one or more of the following:

assault, destruction of property, “combative” or “agitated” behavior, and

other “uncooperative” or threatening behavior requiring physical restraint.

46
Each patient had evidence of acute cocaine use documented by at least two

of the following three criteria: (1) a history of cocaine use within 12

hours; (2) witnessed behavior, symptoms, or clinical findings consistent with

acute cocaine intoxication as described by other studies (Gay 1982); or

(3) detection of cocaine metabolites in the urine.

RESULTS

Patients

Thirty-seven patients with violent or aggressive behavior associated with

acute cocaine intoxication were identified from the two patient data sets

described above. Nineteen patients were identified in data set A, representing 8.1 percent of all visits to the MED for acute and chronic cocaineassociated medical problems over a 6-month period. An additional 18

patients were identified in data set B. Over the 2-year, nonoverlapping

period that brackets these two data sets, there was an estimated total of 900

visits to the MED for acute and chronic cocaine-associated medical problems. Therefore, the patients with violent or aggressive behavior associated

with acute cocaine use represented at least 4 percent of all cocaine-related

visits to the MED.

Patients included 31 men and 6 women with a mean age of 28.2 years

(range 16 to 46 years). All routes of cocaine use were used; however,

route was not specified in five patient charts. Intravenous injection was

used by 45 percent of patients, 33 percent smoked cocaine, nasal insufflation (“snorting”) was specified by four patients, and one patient ingested

cocaine orally. Four patients used multiple routes. Estimates of amounts of

drug use and frequency of drug use were extremely variable and not well

documented. While some patients described daily use of several grams,

many patients described themselves as “occasional” users. Cocaine use was

verified by toxicologic testing to quantify cocaine metabolite in patient’s

urine. Drug testing was not done in five patients. Cocaine metabolites

were not detected in the urine of four patients despite a history of acute

cocaine use, making the diagnosis of acute cocaine use unclear in these

patients.

Other drugs of abuse and alcohol were commonly used acutely, in combination with cocaine. Alcohol use was determined by history or was detected

in the blood of half the patients, although the blood level was less than

100 mg/dL in all but one patient. Other drugs used with cocaine, as determined by history or toxicologic testing, included benzodiazepines in four

patients, opiates in three patients, marijuana in three patients (determined by

history only), phencyclidine in two patients, and tricyclic antidepressant in

one patient. Five patients used more than two substances of abuse, including cocaine. Only 19 patients used only cocaine. Two patients used

cocaine and marijuana.

47
Behaviors

Violent behavior or aggressive behavior was described “in the field” just

prior to the MED visit (and was often the reason the patient was brought to

the hospital by police or family), occurred during the period that the patient

was in the MED, or occurred in both settings. Violent behavior was described by police in 20 patients (54 percent), by paramedics in 6 patients

(2 percent), by friends or family members in 11 patients (30 percent), and

was directly observed in the MED by physicians and nurses in 30 patients

(81 percent).

Behavior was determined to be associated or not associated with a psychotic or delirious state. Nonpsychotic behavior was described in 14 cases

(38 percent). In these cases, behavior was described as “combative,” “uncooperative,” or “agitated.” Description of a typical patient follows.

A 31-year-old woman was brought to the MED for violent

behavior after she was injected with cocaine. In the ambulance, she was “nervous” and refused intravenous therapy.

In the MED, she was alert but uncooperative, fighting with

the staff, “acting wildly,” and repeatedly “leaping off the

stretcher.” She was restrained but continued to refuse to

answer questions. After 2 hours, she was conversant and

cooperative.

Behavior was described as “delirious,” “paranoid,” or associated with altered

mental status in 23 cases (62 percent). These patients had a behavior pattern that was typical of cocaine-induced psychosis or had an altered mental

status with disorientation and violent behavior after a seizure or syncopal

spell. These patients also shared many of the combative and agitated

features of the nondelirium cases. The following patient had such a

presentation:

A 42-year-old man was brought to the MED by police

after threatening to harm his mother after he used cocaine.

He was found by police running in the street yelling

“people are going to kill me.” He was initially disoriented, hypertensive, and tachycardic. He was combative and

was managed with limb restraints and an intramuscular injection of haloperidol. He became lucid within several

hours.

Seven patients specifically assaulted others (often security guards or police

personnel), and property destruction was noted prior to the MED visit in

four additional patients. The following is an illustrative case.

48
A 34-year-old man with a long history of cocaine use

came to the MED after “testing” intravenous cocaine prior

to a large purchase. After injecting the cocaine, he began

having hallucinations, chest pain, and shortness of breath.

According to friends he then “went crazy” and began to

destroy the furniture in the room. Pretending to have a

gun, he entered the room next door, destroyed the furniture, and passed out. He was alert but anxious in the

MED. He was admitted for management of

rhabdomyolysis.

Many of these violent behaviors were associated with activity involving

extreme exertion. Often patients were running down streets, had prolonged

struggles with police, or, in one case, climbed a large fence around a highway after injecting 1 g of cocaine. Attempts by police officers to stop

these patients were commonly met with struggles and fighting.

Medical Complications

In addition to behavioral changes, patients often had serious medical symptoms or complications. Cardiovascular complaints including chest pain,

often associated with dyspnea and diaphoresis or palpitations were noted by

seven patients. Hypertension was common. The following was an extreme

case.

A 25-year-old man with a history of mild hypertension was

brought in by police for assault after he smoked “a large

amount” of cocaine. He was combative but complained of

chest pain in the MED. His blood pressure was 300/210

mm Hg, and he was given intravenous labetelol for control

of his blood pressure and admitted to the hospital.

Serious neurologic complications, all previously known to be associated with

cocaine use (Lowenstein et al. 1987), occurred in 11 patients, including 5

who developed coma following violent behavior, 4 who had seizures, and 2

who experienced syncope. Violent and aggressive behavior commonly

occurred after seizure or syncope as the following case illustrates.

A 19-year-old man had a seizure after smoking crack and

then began to fight with his friends. Despite being held

down, he kicked the paramedics and screamed, “I’m going

to kill the [person] who gave me crack” In the MED, he

violently fought with the staff. He was fully restrained

and given intramuscular haloperidol.

Another serious medical complication was rhabdomyolysis, diagnosed in 18

patients, 2 of whom required dialysis for renal failure. This high incidence

49
is due to the bias introduced by the use of the rhabdomyolysis data set

(data set B) for patient selection.

Respiratory arrest following a period of violent behavior occurred in three

patients, all requiring endotracheal intubation and ventilatory support. This

potentially fatal complication has been previously described by Wetli and

Fishbain (1985) in a description of patients with “excited delirium.”

Laboratory test abnormalities occurred in many of the patients with violent

behavior including leukocytosis (white blood cell count greater than 10,000

cells/mm3), elevated serum creatinine (greater than 2.0 mg/dL), and a mild

metabolic acidosis. Approximately one-third of patients had a fever (oral

temperature greater than 38 °C), and two patients were hyperthermic (temperature greater than 40 °C). Minor trauma comprised of multiple lacerations or abrasions occurred in 11 patients (30 percent).

Therapy

Most patients did not receive a specific drug therapy for violent behavior.

Seven patients had full resolution of altered mental status and behavioral

changes at the time of evaluation in the MED. Extremity (limb) restraints

(leather or cloth) were used for 13 patients and required multiple medical

staff members for application.

Drug therapy was rarely used. Haloperidol was used in six patients, all of

whom required extremity restraints. One patient received intravenous lorazepam for behavior management, and one patient (previously described)

received intravenous labetolol to control severe hypertension.

Of the 37 patients, 20 (54 percent) were admitted to the hospital for management of medical complications or for evaluation of persistent abnormal

mental status. This included all 20 of the patients identified in data set B

and 3 of 17 patients from data set A. Of those not admitted, six were released into police custody, two were transferred to the psychiatry department

for further evaluation, and nine were discharged home from the MED. All

patients who were admitted were alive at the time of discharge from the

MED or the inpatient service.

DISCUSSION

This study found that patients with acute cocaine intoxication may present

with a wide variety of violent and aggressive behavior patterns. Further,

observations from this study suggest that patients with cocaine-associated

violent or aggressive behavior, seen in the ED of a large inner-city hospital

are acutely ill patients who are difficult to manage and have multiple complex medical complications as a consequence of cocaine intoxication. These

Endings are in agreement with previous studies linking the pharmacologic

50
effects of the cocaine with violent behavior. Wetli and Fishbain (1985)

were among the first to describe clinical characteristics of a series of acutely ill cocaine-intoxicated patients with violent behavior. Several other

groups have documented violent behavior occurring in the setting of acute

cocaine intoxication. Honer et al. (1987) provide a limited description of

70 patients with acute psychiatric symptoms, of which at least half had

some violent behavior; however, details were not provided. Further, Roth

et al. (1988) described a large series of acutely intoxicated patients admitted

for rhabdomyolysis who were often violent, combative, and agitated. Together, these patient observations demonstrate a “proneness to violence,”

particularly associated with cocaine-induced psychosis, as was described by

Past (1975). Additionally, these data support previous observations that violent behavior can be a manifestation of cocaine intoxication in the absence

of psychosis (Manschreck et al. 1988). There are several lines of evidence

that support a psychopharmacologic basis for cocaine-induced violent behavior in humans.

Cocaine is a complex pharmacologic agent that acts as a local anesthetic

and as a central nervous system (CNS) neurochemical modulator. The

major CNS effects of acute cocaine use are increases in the major neurotransmitters: dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin (Gold et al. 1986).

These occur because cocaine blocks the intrasynaptic reuptake of these

neurotransmitter, resulting in a flood of intrasynaptic neurochemicals and,

consequently, increased postsynaptic stimulation by these neurochemicals.

Behaviorally, the increased dopamine levels are likely responsible for

cocaine-induced euphoria at low levels and dysphoria at higher levels (Gold

et al. 1986; Johanson and Fischman 1989). Dopamine is postulated to be

the key neurotransmitter responsible for positive reinforcement or drug

“craving” (Ritz et al. 1987). Norepinephrine increases levels of alertness

and, together with dopamine, results in increased psychomotor activity and

seizures. Examples of peripheral effects of increased norepinephrine transmission are cardiovascular findings of hypertension, tachycardia, and

arrhythmia (Dackis et al. 1989).

Chronic cocaine use is hypothesized to deplete the neurotransmitter pool of

dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin, and, therefore, to result in a

decrease in neurotransmitter stimulation (Gold et al. 1986). Recent studies

in rats chronically treated with cocaine have demonstrated a decrease in

brain levels of dopamine metabolites (Wyatt et al. 1988). Evidence that

this may occur in humans is supported by data showing that serum prolactin, a hormone under tonic dopamine inhibition, is increased in chronic

cocaine abusers (Gawin and Kleber 1985a; Mendelson et al. 1988). While

there are several potential mechanisms for this, a decreased dopamine effect

is the most attractive explanation.

Similar neuroendocrine changes have been correlated with aggressive behavior and suicide. Fishbein et al. (1989) observed that serum prolactin levels

51
are greater in groups of substance abusers (including noncocaine substances)

who have high levels of aggressive behavior, suggesting that this hormone

may be a marker for neurochemical changes that increase aggressive behavior. Cocaine withdrawal states are also associated with dopamine depletion

and high prolactin levels (Mendelson et al. 1988). During this withdrawal

period, which can begin within hours of discontinuing cocaine use, users

may become irritable and agitated and may be prone to violent behavior

(Gawin and Kleber 1986).

Fishbein et al. (1989) and others (Brown et al. 1982) have also suggested

that modulation of serotonin is important in aggressive behavior. A de

crease in serotonin, which is hypothesized to occur with chronic cocaine use

(Gold et al. 1986), has been observed to occur in rats following acute cocaine injection (Hanson et al. 1987) and may have a role in violent behavior. The hypothesis that a fall in the neuroinhibitory effects of serotonin

may be related to aggressive behavior is supported, in part, by data on humans, which show that cerebral spinal fluid levels of serotonin metabolite

are deceased, possibly due to serotonin depletion, in individuals with compulsive-aggressive behavior and those with suicidal behavior (Brown et al.

1982).

Studies that investigate changes in neurochemical levels indicate that

repeated doses of cocaine (“chronic”), even over 24 hours, result in different effects than single doses (Johanson and Fischman 1989; Hanson et al.

1987). Therefore, it is perhaps misleading to label patients in this study as

“acutely” intoxicated, since it is unlikely that a single dose of cocaine was

used. Although data concerning the intensity and chronicity of cocaine use

were not available in the present study, Gawin and Kleber (1985b) have

emphasized that the binge use of several grams of cocaine over several days

is not uncommon. In addition, Brower et al. (1988) found that cocaine

users with psychotic or violent symptoms used more cocaine over more

days than those without symptoms. This chronic and intense use may be a

key factor for precipitating violent behavior and deserves further attention in

future studies that seek to identify discrete biologic factors that determine

violent behavior.

Additional evidence that the psychopharmacologic effects of cocaine are

linked to violent behavior comes from investigations of the effects of

amphetamine, a cocainelike stimulant, on aggressive behavior. Amphetamine, like cocaine, increases CNS dopaminergic activity and results in

increased drug self-administration; chronic use results in dopamine depletion

(Seiden 1985; Gawin and Ellinwood 1988). Chronic use also results in a

classic drug-induced psychosis, which includes inappropriate aggressive

behavior (Seiden 1985; Sato 1986). Ellinwood (1971) described 13 persons

who committed homicide while intoxicated by amphetamine. Asnis and

Smith (1978) also described patterns of violent behavior in amphetamine

users but suggested that personality and environmental factors played

52
important roles. As with human cocaine studies (Johanson and Fischman

1989), only limited human amphetamine behavior studies have been done.

Beezley et al. (1987), using volunteer college students and relatively low

doses (0.32 mg/kg) of oral dextroamphetamine, failed to show that the drug

caused increased aggressive behavior when compared to placebo; however,

this model may not be analogous to use patterns in chronic methamphetamine or other stimulant abusers.

Studies that show a lack of relationship between cocaine use and violent

behavior are primarily studies of persons arrested for violent crimes (Collins

et al. 1988; Kozel and DuPont 1977). These study populations differ from

the populations that have linked cocaine with violent behavior in that the

latter are often hospitalized patients. It is possible that acutely hospitalized

patients described in the present study and by others (Brewer et al. 1988;

Honer et al. 1987; Jekel et al. 1986) were using higher doses of drug or

using the drug more frequently and, despite committing violent crimes, were

taken to a hospital for medical management instead of being incarcerated.

The possibility that jailed users are a different population from hospitalized

users suggests that there is a dose-response factor related to violent behavior. This is consistent with Post’s (1975) psychiatric description of acute

cocaine as a spectrum or “continuum” of clinical syndromes. With lower

doses, the patient experiences a feeling of increased power that may be

associated with maniclike hyperactivity and a proneness to violence, but

without a change in sensorium or mental status. With more severe intoxication, the patient presentation is that of a drug-induced psychosis and is associated with violent behavior. This also emphasizes another potential difference between studies related to the interpretation of the term “violent

behavior.” For example, violent behavior associated with psychosis or a

delirium state is likely to be viewed as a different behavior than an assault

committed while the cocaine abuser is only mildly intoxicated. In the

former state, the individual may be termed “a psychiatric patient” and is

taken to a hospital, while in the latter, the abuser is a “criminal” and is

taken to jail.

The violence or aggressive behaviors associated with the psychopharmacologic effect of cocaine as described in this study may be multifactorial, a

possibility that underlines the potential limitations of this study. Important

factors include underlying psychiatric disease, environmental factors, and the

effect of concomitant drug use. Underlying psychiatric disease is a common problem among the indigent homeless who frequent the inner-city

hospitals. Further, Teplin (this volume) emphasized that psychosocial

personality disorders are more common among drug users. In this context,

there may be an increased incidence of violent behavior in the study population, but since there is not a control, cocaine-nonusing population for comparison, the question cannot be answered. Even if there is an increase in

psychopathology in the study population, cocaine plays an important role.

53
As Post (1975) noted, the patient with underlying psychiatric disease is

prone to cocaine-induced behavioral changes.

There are several environmental pressures that may be important in causing

violent behavior in the described patient population. Subcultural behaviors

associated with gangs, crowded living conditions, and adverse relationships

with law enforcement officers are likely important factors but are beyond

the scope of this discussion. Also, the ED environment itself may contribute to aggressive and violent behavior. Long waiting times, crowded conditions, and poor staff-patient communication in a high-stress setting have

been implicated as a cause for violent behavior (Lavoie et al. 1988).

Finally, other intoxicants, coingested with cocaine, may cause violent or

aggressive behavior. In the present study, almost half of the patients had

detectable, though low, blood alcohol levels (less than 100 mg/dL). Both

acute and chronic use of alcohol has been associated with violent behavior

(Collins and Schlenger 1988). This may be a confounding factor in many

other cocaine-violence studies because over 85 percent of cocaine users use

alcohol (Roehrich and Gold 1988). Alcohol is rapidly metabolized and use

cannot be detected after several hours so that studies, such as Collins et al.

(1988) that depend on drug screens, may miss this important substance.

Other drugs used by patients in this study that have been previously associated with violent behavior include amphetamine, opiates, and phencyclidine

(Collins et al. 1988).

The patients in this MED study had a high incidence of cocaine-use-related

medical problems, and a high percentage required hospital admission. This

particular group of patients may not be representative of all patients with

cocaine-associated violent behavior, because half were selected from a data

base of patients that were admitted with cocaine-associated rhabdomyolysis,

and if the rhabdomyolysis group is excluded, the hospitalization rate is only

18 percent. Nonetheless, the need for hospitalization of the violent cocaineintoxicated patient should not be discounted. Wetli and Fishbain (1985)

emphasized the importance of prompt, aggressive medical care for the violent patient presenting with “excited delirium,” after they noted that several

of these types of patients died while in police custody following arrests for

assault and other crimes.

The management of the patient with acute cocaine intoxication and violent

behavior does not usually require drug therapy (Brady et al., in press;

Derlet and Albertson 1989). The half-life of cocaine is short, less than

1 hour when smoked or used intravenously (Johanson and Fischman 1989),

and, as was the case in most of the patients in this study, the acute behavioral changes rapidly resolved spontaneously. Benzodiazepines, especially

diazepam, have been shown to be the most efficacious agent for the management of acute cocaine intoxication, but a drug from this class was used

in only one patient in this study. Animal studies show that diazepam

54
effectively prevents seizure and death, while other drugs, such as the beta

adrenergic antagonist propranolol, ate ineffective (Catravas and Waters

1981). Haloperidol has been most widely recommended as the drug of

choice for the management of acutely psychotic patients (Ellison and Jacobs

1986). Anecdotally, it was effective and without complications when used

in these cocaine-intoxicated patients. Sherer et al. (1989) found that pretreatment with haloperidol decreased the “pleasantness” of the cocaine effect

and attenuated the cocaine-mediated hypertension. As a dopamine antagonist, it may play a beneficial role in the cocaine user with high-dopamine

states but theoretically may be less effective in the chronically depleted,

bingeing patient.

The use of leather or cloth limb and trunk restraints for the control of the

combative patient is common and often necessary to protect the staff and

the patient from bodily harm. The patient who continues to struggle against

restraints may be at risk for other medical complications and therefore

should be evaluated for adjunctive drug therapy with haloperidol or

benzodiazepine.

Above all, an orderly approach to potential and acute medical problems

with attention to respiratory, cardiovascular, and neurologic systems, is

essential. Those caring for the violent cocaine abuser should be aware that

the violent behavior may be short lived but that other serious medical problems may coexist that will not resolve spontaneously, i.e., violent behavior

in the cocaine user should be considered a marker for associated medical

problems.

CONCLUSION

The association of acute cocaine intoxication and violent behavior appears to

be primarily related to a state of intense cocaine intoxication. Several

potential neurotransmitter mechanisms may link cocaine with violent and

aggressive behavior. Further animal studies are needed to continue to

investigate neurochemical changes that correlate with behavioral changes.

Future research in man should include an investigation of acute neurochemical and endocrinologic changes associated with the cocaine-intoxicated

patient. These studies must be controlled for environmental factors, polydrug use, and underlying psychiatric disease. Long-term followup of cocaine users may reveal chronic behavioral, neurochemical, and endocrinologic changes and may be important for future treatment programs.

REFERENCES

Asnis, S.F., and Smith, R.C. Amphetamine abuse and violence. J Psychedelic Drugs 10:371-377, 1978.

55
Beezley, D.A.; Gantner, A.B.; Bailey, D.S.; and Taylor, S.P. Amphetamines

and human physical aggression. J Res Pers 21:52-60, 1987.

Brody, S.L.; Slovis, C.M.; and Wrenn, K.D. Cocaine related medical problems: A consecutive series of 233 patients. Am J Med 88:325-331,

1990.

Brower, K.J.; Blow, F.C.; and Beresford, T.P. Forms of cocaine and

psychiatric symptom. Lancet 1:50, 1988.

Brown, G.L.; Goodwin, F.K.; and Bunney, W.E. Human aggression and

suicide: Their relationship to neuropsychiatric diagnoses and serotonin

metabolism. In: Ho, B.T.; Schoolar, J.C.; and Usdin, E., eds. Serotonin

in Biologic Psychiatry. New York: Raven Press, 1982. pp. 287-307.

Catravas, J.D., and Waters, I.W. Acute cocaine intoxication in the conscious dog: Studies on the mechanism of lethality. J Pharmacol Exp

Ther 217:350-356, 1981.

Collins, J.J.; Powers, L.L.; and Craddock, A. Recent drug use and violent

arrest charges in three cities. Center for Social Research and Policy

Analysis, Research Triangle Institute, NC. Presented at the American

Society of Criminology, Chicago, IL, 1988.

Collins, J.J., and Schlenger, W.E. Acute and chronic effects of alcohol use

on violence. J Stud Alcohol 49:516-521, 1988.

Cregler, L.L., and Mark, H. Medical complications of cocaine abuse. N

Engl J Med 315:1495-1499, 1986.

Dackis, C.A., and Gold, M.S. Psychopharmacology of cocaine. Psychiatr

Ann 18:528-530, 1988.

Derlet, R.W., and Albertson, T.E. Emergency department presentation of

cocaine intoxication. Ann Emerg Med 18:42-546, 1989.

Ellinwood, E.H. Assault and homicide associated with amphetamine abuse.

Am J Psychiatry 127:1170-1175, 1971.

Ellison, J.M., and Jacobs, D. Emergency psychopharmacology: A review

and update. Ann Emerg Med 15:962-968, 1986.

Fishbein, D.H.; Lozovsky, D.; and Jaffee, J.H. Impulsivity, aggression, and

neuroendocrine responses to serotonergic stimulation in substance abusers.

Biol Psychiatry 25:1049-1066, 1989.

Gawin, F.H., and Ellinwood, E.H. Cocaine and other stimulants: Actions,

abuse and treatment. N Engl J Med 318:1173-1182, 1988.

Gawin, F.H., and Kleber, H.D. Neuroendocrine findings in chronic cocaine

abusers: A preliminary report. Br J Psychiatry 147:569-573, 1985a.

Gawin, F.H., and Kleber, H.D. Cocaine use in a treatment population:

Patterns and diagnostic distinctions. In: Kozel, N.J., and Adams, E.H.,

eds. Cocaine Use in America: Epidemiologic and Clinical Perspectives.

National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph 61. DHHS Pub.

No. (ADM)85-1414. Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print.

Off., 1985b. pp. 182-192.

Gawin, F.H., and Kleber, H.D. Abstinence symptomatology and psychiatric

diagnosis in cocaine abusers. Arch Gen Psychiatry 43:107-113, 1986.

Gay, G.R. Clinical management of acute and chronic cocaine poisoning.

Ann Emerg Med 11:562-572, 1982.

56
George, F.R. Cocaine produces low dose locomotor depressant effects in

mice. Psychopharmacology 99:147-150, 1989.

Gold, M.S.; Dackis, C.A.; Pottash, A.L.C.; Extein, L.; and Washton, A.

Cocaine update: From bench to bedside. Adv Alcohol Subst Abuse 5:35-

60, 1986.

Goldstein, P.J. The drugs-violence nexus: A tripartite conceptual framework. J Drug Issues 15:493-506, 1986.

Goldstein, P.J.; Bellucci, P.A.; Spunt, B.J.; Miller, T.; Cortez N.; Khan, M.;

Durrance, R.; and Vega, A. Female drug related involvement in violent

episodes. Narcotic and Drug Research, Inc., Report for the New York

State Division of Substance Abuse, March 1988.

Hadfield, M.G. Cocaine: Peak time of action on isolation-induced fighting.

Neuropharmacology 21:711-713, 1982.

Hanson, G.R.; Matsuda, L.A.; and Gibb, J.W. Effects of cocaine on methamphetamine-induced neurochemical changes: Characterization of cocaine

as a monoamine uptake blocker. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 242:507-513,

1987.

Harruff, R.C.; Francisco, J.T.; Elkins, S.K.; Phillips, A.M.; and Femandez,

G.S. Cocaine and homicide in Memphis and Shelby County: An epidemic of violence. J Forensic Sci 33:1231-1237, 1988.

Honer, W.G.; Gerwitz, G.; and Turey, M. Psychosis and violence in

cocaine smokers. Lancet 2:451, 1987.

Jekel, J.F.; Allen, D.F.; Podlewski, H.; Clarke, N.; Dean-Patterson, S.; and

Cartwright, P. Epidemic free-base cocaine abuse: Case study from the

Bahamas. Lancet 1:459-462, 1986.

Johanson, C.-E., and Fischman, M.W. The pharmacology of cocaine related

to its abuse. Pharmacol Rev 41:3-52, 1989.

Johnson, T.E.; Lebenow, G.C.; Miller, M.; Gonzalez, D.L.; and Carroll, G.

Urban murders: On the rise. Newsweek, February 9, 1987. p. 30.

Kantak, K.M. Magnesium alters the potency of cocaine and haloperidol on

mouse aggression. Psychopharmacology 99:181-188, 1989.

Kozel, N.J., and DuPont, R.L. Trends in drug use and crime and their relationship in an arrested population. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 4:413-429,

1977.

Lavoie, F.W.; Carter, G.L.; Danzl, D.F.; and Berg, R.L. Emergency department violence in United States teaching hospitals. Ann Emerg Med

17:1227-1233, 1988.

Lowenstein, D.H.; Massa, S.M.; Rowbotham, M.C.; Collins, S.D.;

McKinney, H.E.; and Simon, R.P. Acute neurologic and psychiatric complications associated with cocaine abuse. Am J Med 83:841-846, 1987.

Manschreck, T.C.; Laughery, J.A.; Weinstein, C.C.; Allen, D.; Humblestone,

B.; Neville, M.; Podlewski, H.; and Mitra, N. Characteristics of freebase

cocaine psychosis. Yale J Biol Med 61:115-122, 1988.

57
Mendelson, J.H.; Teoh, S.K.; Lange, U.; Mello, N.K.; Weiss, R.; Skupny,

A.; and Ellingboe, J. Anterior pituitary, adrenal, and gonadal hormones

during cocaine withdrawal. Am J Psychiatry 145:1094-1098, 1988.

Miczek, K.A. Effects of 1-dopa, d-amphetamine and cocaine on intruderevoked aggression in rats and mice. Prog Neuro-Psychopharmacol 1271-

1277, 1977.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. Semiannual Report. Data from the Drug

Abuse Warning Network Statistical Series G, Number 22. DHHS Pub.

No. (ADM)89-1607. Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print.

Off., 1989.

Post, R.M. Cocaine psychosis: A continuum model. Am J Psychiatry

132:225-231, 1975.

Ritz, M.C.; Lamb, R.J.; Goldberg, S.R.; and Kuhar, M.J. Cocaine receptors

on dopamine transporters are related to self-administration of cocaine.

Science 237:1219-1223, 1987.

Roehrich, H., and Gold, MS. 800-COCAINE: Origin, significance, and

Endings. Yale J Biol Med 61:149-155, 1988.

Roth, D.; Alarcon, F.J.; Fernandez, J.A.; Preston, R.A.; and Bourgoignie,

J.J. Acute rhabdomyolysis associated with cocaine intoxication. N Engl

J Med 319:673-677, 1988.

Sato, M. Acute exacerbation of methamphetamine psychosis and lasting

dopamine supersensitivity—a clinical survey. Psychopharmacol Bull

22:751-756, 1986.

Seiden, L.S. Methamphetamine: Toxicity to dopaminergic neurons. In:

Brown, R.F., and Friedman, D.F., eds. Neuroscience Methods in Drug

Abuse Research. National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph

62. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)85-1415. Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs.,

U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1985. pp. 100-116.

Sherer, M.A.; Kumor, K.M.; and Jaffe, J.H. Effects of intravenous cocaine

are partially attenuated by haloperidol. Psychiatry Res 27:117-125, 1989.

Wetli, C.V., and Fishbain, D.A. Cocaine-induced psychosis and sudden

death in recreational cocaine users. J Forensic Sci 30:873-880, 1985.

Wyatt, R.J.; Karoum, F.; Suddath, R.; and Fawcett, R. Persistently decreased brain dopamine levels and cocaine. JAMA 259:2996, 1988.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Martha M. Wilber, M.D., Corey M. Slovis, and Keith D. Wrenn, M.D.,

assisted with data collection and analysis.

58
AUTHOR

Steven L. Brody, M.D.

Former Director

Medical Intensive Care Unit

Grady Memorial Hospital

and

Assistant Professor of Medicine and

Emergency Medicine

Emory University School of Medicine

Atlanta, GA 30303

Current position:

Senior Staff Fellow

Pulmonary Branch

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute

National Institutes of Health

Building 10, Room 6D-03

Bethesda, MD 20892

59
The Operational Styles of Crack

Houses in Detroit

Tom Mieczowski

INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes data from a study that examined the principles of

management and organization in typical crack-house operations in Detroit,

MI. These methods involve explicit violence, such as the use of firearms,

beatings, and intimidation, as a part of the operational procedure of the

crack house. The crack house exhibits implicit violence as well in the

nature of the social interactions between clients and sellers and between

clients themselves. The chapter also focuses on placing the operational

techniques established in crack houses within the larger historical context of

drug dealing. Thus, periodically, this chapter will refer to the street sales

literature based on heroin as the drug of choice. It is not our intent to

uncritically equate heroin selling with crack selling, nor is it within the

scope of this chapter to explore all the complex contrasts and similarities

between a generic approach to street hustling and the qualifications of that

approach for each specific drug type. Based on research over the last

decade, however, it is evident that the broad set of dynamics that constitute

“hustling” as an aspect of street life, drug use, and drug sales is applicable,

in some degree at least, to crack retailing. Furthermore, historic models

developed with data based on heroin selling operations should not be a

priori excluded as invalid.

Because the generalized concept of the distribution of cocaine involves a

complex set of actions and actors, the data presented will be limited to

describing street-level sales; the manner by which sellers and users effectively accomplish exchanges within their own locales; and the utilization of

violence to accomplish and facilitate these ends. Descriptions will concentrate on the “street scene” or lowest end retail activities associated with the

network of drug distribution.

60
LITERATURE REVIEW

The “street” conception of drug distribution has been developed in the literature for several decades. Studying street sellers of drugs is originally associated with the work of Edward Preble (Preble and Casey 1969). In recent

years, this level of sales has been explored by Redlinger (1975), Caplowitz

(1976), Wepner (1977), Johnson et al. (1985), Mieczkowski (1986), Pearson

(1987), and a host of other criminologists, anthropologists, and behavioral

scientists. Although explicit discussions of crack selling and data derived

from research on crack sales activities are quite rare, a small amount of

work has been done. Inciardi, for example, has surveyed street people in

Miami, FL, and has presented some data about their involvement with crack

selling (Inciardi 1986; Inciardi, this volume). Also, the interplay between

economic management, drug abuse, street life, and violent behavior has been

explored by Goldstein (1981), as well as Nurco et al. (1985). Another related work is Hanson and colleagues’ Life with Heroin, which is an elaboration on these themes within the heroin subculture (Hanson et al. 1985).

The present work continues in this direction by developing descriptions of

social behavior of street crack sellers.

The “street scene” in drug sales and use refers to a loosely structured social

system by which retail consumers of drugs are supplied with low-cost, small

dose increments of illicit substances. It is an active, transient, and improvised market place that takes on a diverse situational character. In Detroit,

the street level of drug sales has three general dimensions.

Street Sales. Street sales are the open-air, sidewalk, or roadway sales

of small retail quantities of drugs to walk-up or drive-up customers.

There is no required prior conspiracy or consultation between buyer and

seller. Relatively recent descriptions of this system are in Geberth

(1978), Mieczkowski (1986), Hanson et al. (1985), and Hagedorn

(1988). This technique frequently represents the least sophisticated

method of distribution.

Runners and Beepermen. This system involves elements of prior consultation or interaction between buyer and seller. The buyer may enter

into that interaction directly, or the buyer may utilize an intermediary

who may have prior relationships with a seller. Runners act as sales

agents for the primary retailer. The term “runner” may also connote an

intermediary (touter) who retrieves drugs for a consumer and receives,

in terms of reward, a portion of the drugs secured for the end user. A

beeperman is a retail seller who distributes by prior telephone consultation with a consumer. The term is used because the prior consultation

occurs by telephone and is initiated by contact with a phone pager, or

“beeper.” Typically, the beeperman may rendezvous at an agreed locale

with the consumer, deliver the contraband to a home or office, or require the consumer to come to a particular place to receive the drugs.

61
Beepers, being widely available at low cost, have become increasingly

popular mechanisms for drug sales. The mere possession of a beeper,

for example, may elevate one’s status in street culture—differentiating

one from a “street seller” or “comer boy.”

3. The Crack House. The crack house represents a third method of retail

marketing. Its most distinctive feature is the use of a fixed and secured

locale, to which report all manner of customers. It operates in various

modes or styles, which will be described in some detail in this chapter.

The crack house’s relative permanence distinguishes it in comparison to

the first two techniques, which are transient methods.

METHODOLUGY

The data are derived from the Detroit Crack Ethnography Project (DCEP)

funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (grant number OJP-88-M 39J).

The data for this chapter comes from interview transcripts with 100 selfreported dealers and user-dealers of crack cocaine. The informants, who

were clients at a treatment facility, were interviewed anonymously. They

responded to a structured questionnaire and were encouraged to report, in an

open-ended, anecdotal manner, their experiences on the street with crack

cocaine. The objective of the project was to develop a descriptive data

base of user-dealer experiences and to establish what the apparent broad

parameters and dimensions of crack selling are among this particular group

of treatment clients. Although the data are not confined to crack-house

operations, that component of the study will be the focus of this chapter.

The data on the DCEP group consist of two separate components. One

component is a compilation of the interview transcripts with the 100 selfreported dealers and user-dealers of crack cocaine. The informants, clients

at a treatment facility, were chosen by examination of the screening intake

reports, to determine which clients had significant crack cocaine involvement in their history. These clients were approached by the staff supervisor

and asked if they would be interested in volunteering for an interview. If

they expressed an interest, they were asked to sign an informed consent

form, and an interview was scheduled. All volunteers, after appearing at

the interview site, were then told that they would receive a $25 stipend for

participating in the study. The interviews were tape-recorded, and, from

these tape recordings, transcripts were generated. The interviews consisted

of anecdotal, open-ended discussion and a structured questionnaire. In addition to the text data, there is the summary report of responses to the questionnaire. Both the questionnaire and the open-ended discussions were

directed at the informant’s experiences on the street with crack cocaine.

62
FINDINGS

The Preferences of Crack Purchasers

Figure 1 represents the purchase preferences individuals in the DCEP

sample expressed in buying crack cocaine. By a wide margin, the crack

house was the method most typically used to make purchases. The runner

or beeperman was the second most popular choice. A significant number of

participants reported, not surprisingly, a mixed set of preferences depending

on situational availability of crack. However, with 35 respondents reporting

the crack house as the purchase place, and 36 reporting crack houses plus

one or more of the alternative mechanisms as the purchase place, 71 informants relied in whole or in part on crack houses for their supply.

As noted, figure 1 shows that the method of purchase is primarily the crack

house. Of the respondents, 35 named this as their most prevalent purchase

style, followed by 21 who relied upon a touter or beeperman, who delivered

the contraband to them. This delivery was variably reported as “home service,” i.e., delivery to their residence, or a delivery by rendezvous in a

commonly agreed public locale. A frequently reported site was the parking

lot of a local fast-food restaurant. Interestingly, discrete exchanges in highly public places were viewed as more secure than covert locales. Figure 1

also shows that 14 respondents reported using both crack houses and beepermen. Only four respondents identified the street as their exclusive source

for crack. Overt street sales of crack do not seem to have achieved the

prominence and popularity that street sales of heroin had reached in Detroit

at the end of the 1970s (Mieczkowski 1986).

Respondents often reported that crack sold on the street was very poor quality and that street transactions were the least secure. One was more likely

to get “burned” on the street because vendors, having no fixed locale, could

not be held accountable for their merchandise. Also, respondents reported

that a reliance on street crack was typical of extreme stages of compulsive

use. In effect, one was “reduced” to buying from the street as the craving

for crack increased. This was because using other sources required some

measure of gratification delay and discipline. In essence, it takes time and

effort to “rock up” powder cocaine. Thus street transactions were stigmatized, being associated with “fiending” or acute crack binging. One result

is that the fixed-locale crack house has become preeminent as a distribution

device in Detroit.

Operational Techniques of Crack Sellers

Results from ethnographic observations on the different modes of operations

in the crack distribution network indicate differences in selling techniques

among the competing alternatives. Excerpts from some of the dialogue conducted with the study’s subjects provide vivid documentation of their selling

63
FIGURE 1. Crack buying patterns

activities and related behavior. First to be examined are the selling activities of the open-air street sellers, then runners and beepermen, and, last, the

crack-house drug dealer. Phonetic spelling is used in recording the spoken

word to preserve the flavor of the street argot. In the following sequences,

the activities of the beeperman, the street seller, and a hybrid seller, who

mixed street and fixed-locale sales, are presented. Following each excerpt

is a brief commentary.

64
Sales Using the Beeper. As mentioned earlier, selling with the beeper was

the second most popular method utilized by the study subjects to buy crack.

The following excerpts provide some insight on this mode of operation and

why it is popular among crack sellers. (R=researcher, I=informant)

Interview 8: The Beeperman. (22 years old, black, male, ex-convict,

assault)

R: What situation did you sell crack in?

I: As far as the coke, it was like you could sell off the beeper. You

know, we was sellin’ off beepers. Just call on the beeper, and we

call you back and meet you somewhere or the runner somewhere

’cause they be comin’ so fast, you know.

R: How much were you selling? What quantities?

I: I was sellin five pound . . . didn’t too many people call me but as

far as the small amounts, you know, I had people workin’ for me

then when I started sellin’ coke.

R: How did you control your guys?

I: Basically I just had about three guys workin’ with me, you know. I

would just pick up the money. I wouldn’t trust . . . and I had a

lieutenant, and he would just drop it off, you know. My lieutenant

would take the powder and sell it and report to me, and when he’s

finished sellin’ his sack, he would call me, and I’d have the other

guy bring him some more, and he’d drop the money off. Working

outta house and on street comers.

R: Did you worry about ripoffs?

I: I didn’t have to worry about it. The guys workin’ for me had to

worry about that. If my dope came up missin’, they had to suffer

the consequences. But they would be armed and ready for the situation.

R: Would you sell to anybody?

I: No, I’d definitely have to know you. I screened my customers. If

I don’t know you, they can’t sell you none.

R: So you wouldn’t sell anybody, say, an ounce just ’cause they call

you up on the phone and say they want it?

65
I: Right. It would already be packed up when they get it. The lieutenant packed it up for them. I didn’t have to touch the dope at

all, you know. My lieutenant would cop the dope, get the dope,

you know, and hook it up.

R: How much money were you making? Say, weekly?

I: Five grand. Me I was makin’ like, uh, off the powder, if I sold,

uh, it depends on how much I had. I could get a ounce—I used to

get a ounce for $500, but these days an ounce would cost me $700

to $800. I would step on the ‘caine little bit I would cut it . . .

right.

R: What kind of cut did you use?

I: Benzocaine, hicaine, get it right in the store, buy it right out the

store. Cost about $60, $75.

R: What kind of store?

I: Party stores, you know.

R: What kind of profit did you expect to make on an ounce?

I: I would want at least a grand.

R: And your lieutenant breaks the ounce down into eightballs?

I: Yeah, and whatever he makes off his, that his, long as he brings

what I want. Now if he brings me a key (kilo) and wants to sell a

gram, ok, and he break it down and, uh, give it to the rollers and

then pay them, far as he work that out how he gonna pay them,

that was his business. He might make more money than me,

depends on what type of money they workin’ for, but that was his

business.

R: Could you front, say, two pounds?

I: I wadn’t that far ahead you know. I could like get a half a key or

somethin like that.

R: How were your connections made?

I: ’Cause I had knew a lotta big time dope men by bein’ round my

father, you know, but he didn’t know that I had kept in contact

with ‘em you know. Go talk to ‘em and get what I want.

66
There are several interesting features in this dialogue. One is the clear

hierarchical organization of the system. This organization has important

economic benefits to a beeperman who controls many runners or underlings.

This dialogue also illustrates the use of a merchandise consignment technique for distributing crack. It permits entry into distribution processes by

those who are willing to sell but lack sufficient initial capital to start a venture of their own. Control is based on a mixture of faith and fear, a characteristic reported in other research on street syndicates (Goldstein 1981). It

is the need to establish this atmosphere that serves as an entree for violent

behavior. Fear comes from the anticipation of violence as an outcome of

social interaction. The utilization of “cut” is an important point of information. The use of cut permits great enhancement of profitability. Processing

powder cocaine into “rock” makes cutting it a somewhat more complex

process for crack dealers. Cut must react in a proper fashion with sodium

bicarbonate to form a rock and cannot simply mimic the physical appearance of the substance it is designed to expand.

Sales on the Street. The following excerpt captures the quality of street

life and a walk-up crack distribution technique. Not only were this informant’s activities quite literally on the street, but the varieties of activity, including pimping and the reference to other activities, are interesting as well.

The apparent volatility of operations demonstrates what Preble and Casey

(1969) so aptly identified as the dynamics and risks the street hustler encountered in “taking care of business.” It also shows the nature of violence, the method by which it is used with deliberation, and even the ironic

reality that a dealer can be thankful to his violent adversary, demonstrating

a kind of street chivalry when business interests come into conflict. It also

amply demonstrates the faith-fear complex and the role of violence in that

complex.

Interview 13: The Street Seller. (27 years old, black, male, ex-convict,

homicide)

I: We had a thing where we didn’t like guys gettin’ into our little

organization, findin’ out everythin’ ‘bout where we go get our stuff

at, you know. Just knowin’ everythin’ about us and then gettin’

out, you know. And me and the guy had talked about this; we was

like the ground floor of the organization. And as we went up, you

know, we still were at the top. I was ready to go. It was personality conflicts, you know. One night I’m up on Woodward in Highland Park doin’ my business, you know. They still doin’ they business, you know, they watch me pick up money and stuff. I was

sellin’ off a beeper then and, uh, they decide well I got enough

money for ‘em to rob tonight, you know. Which I didn’t have but

a couple hundred dollars, you know. I had met a young lady also

that was whorin’ out on the street, sellin’ her body, so I was doin’

that too. I was also watchin’ her. And, uh, you know it was like

67
we was all into all of that, you know. This is before women was

sellin’ they bodies for crack, you know. It was strictly for the

money. He had his women up there too. And it was like I had

took my car and when I broke away from ‘em I also cut ‘em short

on transportation too, cause we was rentin’ cars. But I had a car

also and that car that I had was for our other activities besides

doin’ drugs. And so they felt in a lotta ways I left ‘em hangin’.

But they had asked me for a ride back over to the joint, but before

we got there, the guy that I was in prison with asked me to drop

him off somewhere, right. So I stopped and let him out the car,

but his friend is still in the front seat. And when he get out the

other guy pulled a pistol on me, you know, sayin’ “you know what

time it is, right?” But all along he had been tellin’ me, and I

wasn’t goin’ for it. I looked at him and I said “Man, I want to

talk to you. You know this is the guy . . . ” and I go to get out

my car, and he shot me in the back up under my shoulder blade

with a .25. It punctured my lung, ricocheted off my rib cage, and

it’s in front of my spine. It surprises me ’cause, personally, I have

killed and I know. I’m not tryin’ to brag or nothin’ like that, but I

am a killer. If I shoot you I’m ‘unna kill you, you know. I

figured he just didn’t want to kill me, ’cause from what he was

tellin’ me, was just don’t come back to Highland Park. It was just

a warnin’ to run me out of Highland Park cause my legs was

outside of the car. He put me back in the car, took my money, he

coulda killed me, he coulda killed me but he didn’t. I’m thankful

for that.

The Combination of Street and House Sales. The following interview

includes dialogue from an informant who worked both the street and a fixed

locale. It reveals the power of entrepreneurial drive, risk-taking behavior,

and desire to develop individual nonmonetary assets by a neighborhood

person recruited into an organization of crack sellers. Note the importance

of violence in interview 12. Clearly the informant’s capabilities in this

regard played a central role in his introduction into and utility for the

organization that supplied him with crack.

Interview 12: The Street Seller. (27 years old, black, male, no criminal

record)

I: I come against this, uh, this gang . . . called Pony Crew, you know.

And, uh, I had came back and they needed me around the neighborhood anyway, ’cause I always liked to fight. I always liked to go

in a disco and start a fight or end up with a fight and come out on

top.

R: So you had a tough reputation on the street?

68
I: Yes. So next thing I know I was with ‘em. I raised up with ‘em,

so we went to gettin’ together. First they wouldn’t show me no

lotta dope, you know. It was like they was bringin’ me packs.

R: And you sold for these guys?

I: Yes.

R: On the street?

I: Yes.

R: To cars driving by?

I: Naw, not like that. It was like, uh, I’d let people or either I go

down on the corner from my mother and sell it or outta an old

man’s house that used, you know, ’cause I useta jist feed it to him.

I be in his basement and they’d jist come to his back door and

knock and he . . . they’d knock on the door and he’d let em in and

they’d dome down.

R: You were selling heroin too?

I: I was sellin’ that mix, you know, mix jive . . . sellin’ this hairon

mixed in with the rest of the stuff. So I had both the powders, you

know, and they came down and used to get it and leave right out.

Because when I was gettin’ high, you know, the guy was givin’ to

me. They was so big that me and the old man used to jist cut ‘em

in half and give ‘em half for the money that they come in with.

And me and him would smoke the other half. Didn’t cost us

nothin’ and the money was right.

R: How did the organization pay you?

I: They was tryin to pay me, uh, like tops, you know . . . so it got to

a point that I was tellin’ ‘em that I wanted to get paid more so I

kept what I wanted.

R: What kind of money could you make in a day?

I: $50. That wadn’t nothin’.

R: Nobody tried messing with you? The organization let you hold

back money?

I: I wadn’t worried about, you know, like I come up $10 or $15 short,

you know. Then I ain’t got to worry ‘bout ‘em jumpin’ on me,

69
you know, ’cause they knew where I was and what state of mind I

was then, you know. Wadn’t worried about nothin’, you know, was

somebody jumped on me they knew where I’d get back with ‘em.

Either they know if they jumped on me they’d had to kill me, so

my reputation was all right far as bein’ in there. So I end up, you

know, backed up.

Interview 12 reveals an interesting combination of dynamics. One is that a

street seller with ambition may do well in building on a business opportunity. This informant is a person who capitalized on the simple skills of

street toughness in two ways. First, his reputation for aggressive behavior

and ability to control aspects of the neighborhood were impressive to a distribution organization, providing him an entry point to larger scale activity

without the need for initial money for investment. Second, his ability to

seize and control a selling facility illustrates a technique frequently reported

in this study; namely, the occupation of dwellings and conversion of them,

through a process of bribery with drugs and intimidation, into crack houses.

This excerpt also reveals that distributing organizations do recruit locals to

move selling operations into neighborhoods. The individual in this case

worked initially for “tops.” Tops are a flat dollar amount or percent of the

sales price of retail units. In Detroit, it represents the lowest level entrepreneurial sales reward system. It is an important element in the distribution mechanism because, for many relatively impoverished entry-level personnel, it is the initial contact with profit as a by-product of sales volume.

Thus, this technique rewards the ambitious and serves as a strong motivator

to enhance further entrepreneurial activity. It reinforces the common belief

that wealth and riches are tied to developing one’s own network of sellers.

This strategy permits recruitment of workers through merchandise consignment. It eliminates the need for entrants to assume high initial front-end

costs in joining an organization. This can, over a period of a year or two,

be quite rewarding financially to all the operatives involved. Although not

evident in this excerpt, Informant 12 eventually went on to become an important courier for his organization, transporting several hundred thousand

dollars worth of cocaine from Florida to Michigan. He was ultimately indicted and arrested by Federal authorities and served several years in

Federal prison as a consequence of these activities. He transited, however,

a rather spectacular financial terrain in a short period of time.

The Crack House. The social situations in which crack houses operate

and the techniques used to establish them are also documented by the interviews. Crack houses vary in the practices and activities that occur within

them. They also differ in the methods by which a seller establishes and

manages them. Examining the DCEP reports reveals some aspects about

these variances and some common attributes experienced by people who

either purchased, worked in, managed, or operated crack houses.

70
Crack house operational styles can be considered along a polarity. At one

end are crack houses characterized as “austere” in their basic managerial

methods. By this term, we mean that the interaction between customer and

seller or staff of sellers, which is the common case, is purely instrumental

and minimal. The major characteristic of such an operation is its minimalization of the seller-buyer interaction. Physically, such locales have a

“fortification” approach in securing the selling station, including at times

complete isolation of the vendor from customer. Virtual isolation is realized by a pass-through sales technique. No face-to-face encounters occur.

Such locales rely on “hardening” the sales site by using barred windows

and doors, bricking up of windows, or boarding up with plywood all

security-risk access to the structure. Interaction for selling purposes is done

through a literal slot or hole, with money being passed in and crack being

passed out. It would be fair to say that these types of operations exhibit

severe economy in social interaction.

Interview 49 is excerpted from the dialogue of a female informant who

describes her experiences at several crack houses. These descriptions show

a somewhat ambiguous mixture of austerity and severity of social interaction along with a “tavern culture” set of social interactions. This excerpt

also demonstrates the type of violence that customers undergo and are

always at risk when making crack purchases. This type of violence is predatory and illustrates one of the functional consequences that arise from selling drugs at a fixed locale.

Interview 49: Crack House. (25 years old, black, female, no criminal

record)

R: What was the scene like where you bought?

I: He had took me to a couple of places over by my mom’s house.

Some of ‘em was like houses, some of ‘em was like vacant buildings that you didn’t think nobody stayed there, and this one place

he introduced me to, it was like somethin, like a joint but you had

to go around the alley and come in through the back. And it was

real dark back there, and there’d be a lotta guys hanging out around

there in case they short or somethin’ and they catch a woman

comin’ back there; they figure she’s easy prey, you know. You just

take her money from her, ’cause that happened to me one night. I

went back there with this guy, and we didn’t see the guy at first, so

we stuck our money up to the window. Then he put somethin’ up

to my forehead and told him if he didn’t give him his money that

he would kill both of us tonight. And I was so scared I had

dropped everythin’ ’cause he had us to strip. And I told him I

didn’t have no money nowhere else besides what I had in my hand.

It was only $10, and I dropped it on the ground, and he picked it

up and he left, and I just left and went home. And I didn’t never

71
go back to that spot anymore. A couple of places that sold, guys

that I had grew up with and I knew ‘em, you know, a little better

than just goin’ to one and they just opened it up and you don’t

know ‘em. Lotta people just sittin’ around gettin’ high. And then

they see you comin’ in and be done bought somethin’, and they

hurry up and try to smoke theirs up, figurin’ they can come over

there and beg you outta yours. Sometime they got a situation

where they felt like they would just come and take it and then you

be murdered.

The informant in interview 49 was victimized by loiterers circulating in the

vicinity of the crack house. Such loitering is a natural outcome of the

crack house’s relatively open public access. To attain a substantial volume

of sales, operators must tolerate public circulation of customers. A byproduct of this, however, is that crack houses attract predators who can

victimize customers for either cash or drugs. Further, violent threats and

the ensuing fear associated with possible violent victimization do not come

exclusively from strangers or other customers loitering in or about the crack

house. The operators of the crackhouses themselves cannot necessarily be

trusted. This is especially true if the house is staffed by strangers to the

neighborhood, particularly “hired hands” who receive only a small and

limited share of the operation’s profit. Syndicate operators were motivated

to place strangers into neighborhoods to forestall conspiracy between neighborhood companions. The following excerpt illustrates this.

Interview 70: Crack House. (32 years old, black, male, no criminal

record)

I: It went pretty smooth for about a month. I was working in the

house, and when he left me that’s when I started getting slick and

taking the bags, opening them up, and cutting little pieces off of to

making them a little smaller so you couldn’t tell, and make my own

bunch for my use and sales. The house had iron-armor-guard doors

with only one door, because he was on the third floor and usually I

would peep out the peephole with a double barrel shotgun and that

was basically it. And you were served through the iron door. No

one came in. Money in, crack out, and close the door. I never had

any problems because if I didn’t know the person, I would say

“Nothing’s happening. I don’t know what you are talking about.”

R: Did you have any guys on the street steering people to you?

I: There were a couple guys living in the apartment building. And if

they had friends or someone that they wanted to get for, I would let

them come up and get it. But they better not bring anyone else up

there. For them bringing in the extra money, we would cut them a

piece or give them something extra too. I was high while I work.

72
When I first started out, I was getting $2 off of every $12 pack,

which we called “tops,” which were $10 rocks. On a good day for

3 hours, maybe about $700. The sack that I was left with was

worth about $200. I would call him to replenish the stock, sometimes before the hour was up. He never left a bigger stash than

that because I did actually run away with a bag at one time towards

the end.

This informant’s dialogue represents a typical austere crack operation, utilizing a common method of touting or “steering” to enhance sales. It also

demonstrates a technique first reported by Mieczkowski (1986) in the heroin

trade, that of “pinching,” i.e., the covert removal by a low-level worker of

small amounts of contraband from each retail unit. Such pinched material

then is either sold for profit by the low-level worker or used for personal

consumption. In this case, it was possible because the boss of the operation

was not in the immediate sight of the workers. In all street drug-dealing

operations, security concerns about customers, ripoff artists, employees, and

others play a major role in dealer behaviors and risks for violence. Occasionally, operators resort to rather extreme measures, including literal

imprisonment of staff. Consider the case illustrated in interview 72.

Interview 72: Crack House. (32 years old, black, male, ex-convict,

robbery)

I: When we first moved over there in Highland Park we were just

smoking. I got into dealing one day when I was at the store, and I

met this man that knew, I was trying to cop. I asked him for 3

dimes ’cause I had $30. I had been seeing him at the store, so I

knew I could talk to him. I found out about this joint that had

closed up because the squeeze had been put on them. I decided

that I was going to open it up. I asked this guy if I got some

dope, “would you work in the joint for me?” I told him that I

would put up $200 worth of drugs for it. I got this joint, and put a

big old padlock on the door where you could stick the key in from

the inside and get out. So the guy was locked in with the dope and

I was the only one that could get in ’cause I had a key too. I gave

the guy a hammer to protect himself. At that time I was trying to

figure out a way to get some money. He had $1,000 worth of

rocks (500 rocks). I got the idea from a guy in the joint that I was

with. The rule was no smoking in the house. Just come up to the

door, throw your money in, you get your rock and you take off.

The only way he could get out in a hurry was through a window.

He was nailed into the kitchen and working out of the back door

and couldn’t get into the rest of the place. We made good money.

We pulled maybe a thousand and a half rocks in maybe 24 hours.

73
Interview 72 illustrates a response to security concerns by site hardening.

In this case, the informant reported elaborate work done on the structure

that not only isolated the actual seller from the customer by locking the

doorway with a chain, but also made it impossible for a person to get to

the seller by breaking into part of the house other than the door aperture

where the selling was actually taking place. In this situation, the crackhouse boss sealed off the kitchen area by building a reinforced wall segregating the kitchen from the remainder of the house, anticipating that robbers

might try breaking and entering through another portal.

One popular locale for selling crack is in older apartment buildings with

large foyers, entrances, or commons. Such public spaces provide an arena

for sales transactions that, while being sheltered from open public view,

allow indoor transactions without the requirement of admitting customers

into a dwelling unit itself. Interview 85 describes such a strategic

arrangement.

Interview 85: Crack House. (27 years old, black, male, no criminal

record)

I: I started selling it with my sister. I moved in with her. She had

the clientele built up. She stop selling, so I moved in and picked

up her clientele. I rocked up the crack myself and got a buddy to

work for me to rock it up, ’cause I didn’t know how to do it that

good. He eventually moved in and watched my back. By that time

I learned how to rock myself so I really didn’t need him ’cause I

was doing everything myself.

R: You ever have any problems?

I: Noa, I never did. My friends that I grew up with could come in

and smoke and otherwise it was business, they come, get it, and

gone. I had guns to protect myself and my buddy would stand at

the top of the stairs to watch my back. My transactions would

happen in the building, not in the apartment. Plus I would come

down with the pistol in my hand.

R: What about the other people in the apartment building?

I: There were a lot of young people in the building and the lady

across the hall started complaining, ’cause of the doors opening and

closing all night. I think we were being watched, too. Business

was doing good, tradin’ dope for goods. I got a beeper too, but I

never got a chance to turn it on, but I played the role whereas I

would walk down the stairs with one on, showing them that I was

progressing and moving up. My baby sister was still staying there,

and I got a beeper for her from somebody off the street. It wasn’t

74
turnt on but we would push the button where it would start beepin’.

I was making big money but I was using big too.

This report is notable in that it represents the use of a certain type of housing unit for situating the crack sales operation. A large apartment complex

of old vintage typically has a larger foyer area. The informant in interview

85 used this as the actual transaction point. The isolation of the customer

from the seller was not as complete as a pass-through operation, but denied

customers access to the seller’s apartment itself (where the cash and crack

in bulk was kept). Security was established by one operator covering the

other with a weapon from a distance. Additionally, the seller appeared

armed to conduct the transaction. This seller was willing to trade crack for

goods and materials as a barter operation, a characteristic that is reported at

other crack-house operations, most commonly what we will identify later as

“tavern culture” houses. The symbolic value of the functionless beeper is

also noteworthy, as is the concern with impressions that such symbols are

believed to make upon others.

Controlling the use of drugs by operating staff in a crack house is an important managerial issue. There is substantial variation of norms regarding

what is good management policy. One concern of operators is that people

who use crack cannot effectively sell it or be trustworthy in handling it.

Yet those most willing to work are often motivated by a desire to obtain

drugs for their own use. Although some staff can be recruited who are

motivated purely by the desire to make cash income, crack houses are not

always operated by profit-oriented users. User-dealers may also be recruited for staff. Management may forbid any on-the-job crack use, but be

indifferent to off-time use. Other managers dismiss any crack-using staff.

Others permit continuous use and pay wages in crack itself, which the staff

member may either keep and use or sell for profit. Interview 94 illustrates

some of this variation and also reveals that workers within crack houses

often work only to get high by varying receipt of wages in the form of

drugs or cash.

Interview 94: Crack House. (21 years old, black, female, no criminal

record)

I: I sold crack for a guy and sold it in a dope house. There would be

a person at the front door, a person at the window with a gun and

you come to the side door or window. And I would be there and

sell the crack. The customer stayed outside. You pass through the

window. The money comes in first and then the crack goes out. I

was paid $10 off of every $50. I would make about $80 to $100 a

day. I took it in cash and spent it on rock, so eventually we took

it in rock. We really didn’t make no money. I was just working

to get high. Some crack houses I worked in paid $75 a day and

some gave you $1 off of every $10.

7 5
Of course, if staff are users and are intoxicated while operating a house,

then security issues are compounded. Aside from the risk that the staff

themselves may “smoke up the stash,” most managers would argue that an

intoxicated staff is more vulnerable to predators. Isolation and security

become even more critical. Thus, in situations in which the staff is permitted or known to use or is suspected of use, management may make extraordinary efforts at isolation. The technique of achieving secure isolation

from the customer can result in creative and ingenious methodologies.

Interviews 90 and 52 demonstrate such inventiveness. The informant in

interview 90 described an operation that involved passing a basket down

from a second-story balcony. In the excerpt taken from interview 52, a

variation on this technique is described.

Interview 90: Crack House. (26 years old, black, male, no criminal

record)

I: When I got my check, I’d cash it. And instead of going home I

would make a stop at the crack house and never made it back home

until I was busted. The scene in the crack houses was a place that

stolen TVs were brought to get crack. People would come in and

sometimes be a dollar short and maybe the dealer would let him go.

There would be about three or four that hung there all the time

walking around with guns on, busted toilets, and so forth. Women

would come in there and go in separate rooms and give johns $4 or

$5 worth. I have been in there when some have pulled guns on

guys, but I have never been involved in anything.

R: How did you get involved in selling?

I: I was looking at the profit that people were making. I did it for a

couple of months and something told me that I didn’t want to get

involved in that. I decided that that is not for me and slowly

backed out of it. The first time me and another guy talked about

getting our own thing going and stuff was ’cause he knew a female

that had a house. I did it and he ran the show because I was

working at night. My partner made the connection and he ran the

show. I gave him $100 and he bought a eightball and he rocked it

up. In running the crack house, you just sit there and wait to

somebody knock on the door in the house. The owner was there

with us. A couple more guys that worked for us was there too.

We sat up there with guns. We got word out through her ’cause

she was smokin’ herself. We would give her so much and something to smoke and she would put the word out. We sold $10

rocks. When I left out of it, they were still selling. We never had

any violence from selling it. Those that came to buy I knew or he

knew. We wouldn’t let them-the buyers-in. We had a little

hook up in the back where you lower down a string with a basket

76
on it and they put the money in it and we would pull it up and put

some crack back in there and lower it to them. We only let those

we knew smoke in the house.

Interview 52: Crack House. (25 years old, black, male, no criminal

record)

I: Sometimes they would smoke and sometime they wouldn’t because,

you know, I didn’t trust a lot of people, you know. ’Cause they

might try to rob me, and so I wouldn’t let them in. I’d just go to

the balcony and throw a shoe down. They put the money in the

shoe and throw it back up, and I’d put the stuff in.

The Use of Occupied Dwellings and Structures

Many informants reported operating out of occupied dwellings, using only a

portion of the structure to sell. Often such vendors operated out of basements, paying a fee or rent to the legal tenants. Often vendors were able

to establish these arrangements with occupants who were crack users. They

would gladly accept crack as rent for the use of their habitat. For some it

also represented a real convenience to have the drug vendor on the immediate premises. Thus, sites could be obtained relatively easily and for little

initial cost. Furthermore, the attraction for a tenant in permitting street

dealers to “set up shop” or “hook up” in their apartments or homes could

also come from parallel benefits associated with the scene typical of social

or tavern-style crack houses. In austere houses, money and drugs were the

only commodities available. But in a crack house that permitted entry and

lingering to occur, other social benefits were also available. For male

tenants, sex was one benefit prominently mentioned. Interviews 74 and 78

are illustrative of this occurrence.

Interview 74: Crack House. (30 years old, black, male, no criminal

record)

I: Now I done got into a house. What you do is find a person that is

on crack that will let you sell crack out of their house in order to

get more crack. All you need say is that you are looking to rent

out somebody house to sell crack and 9 times out of 10 someone

will come to you.

So, having set up in somebody house now, I’m working under his

system now selling from his house. I did this ’cause I didn’t have

the backup that I needed, no protection. I could have went on and

recruited but I was the type of dude that I never really could take

the front lead. Then I started dealing with the police and I said let

somebody else take the heat and I will work for anybody that is

making money.

77
Interview 78: Crack House. (27 years old, black, male, no criminal

record)

I: There were about seven or eight guys working with me in the same

house. This lady that let us use her house is a crack head so all

we had to do is give her some and you can do anything. Over

there they were getting ready to tear down most of them houses

anyway, so we gave her something like $20 cash and a $20 rock a

day.

Likewise, Interview 51, which follows, reveals a similar line of thought.

Here, however, one notes that the dangers of open street sales are also

mentioned, indicating that crack houses permit more secure operations than

open street vending. This interview also demonstrates a theme that appears

throughout the interviews, that prestige is an important element in the thinking of young entrepreneurs. Setting up a house represents a step up in

esteem over the career of street sales.

Interview 51: Crack House. (37 years old, black, male, public order

offender)

I:

R:

I:

R:

I:

A partner and I we used to always go to this one place to cop

from. And we got to talking one day, you know, like we’re spending on the average, like, say from the time we get up ‘til the end of

the day we might spend $100. And like we were buying a $1 capsule, where you could get twice as much for $60 as we could get

between the two of us for a $100 cap. Matter of fact it was a half

a quart $60. So we bought a half quart and capped it up and we

tooted what we wanted and sold the rest.

Where? On the street?

No. This girl I was going with she had a house and we was selling it from her house. At that time selling it out in the streets

wasn’t the in thing, it was real dangerous at that time to do it that

way. And then we were off into peer pressure with the guns and

whatnot to habit a dope house, you know. Running it was like, you

know, you set up a business.

How did you set it up?

Well the girl had the house so it was up to me to talk her into

allowing us to do it, which was easy. All I had to do was give her

some. I told her that we was going to start selling from her house,

she said it was OK.

78
This exploitation of crack-using home owners or renters at times results in

serious, unanticipated violent consequences for the occupants. Agreements

typically begin with the dealers wanting to “just use the basement” or to

operate only out of the kitchen. Tenants who had entered into such

arrangements reported that after achieving a foothold in a section of a

house, crack gangs or crews would usually continuously encroach upon the

property. This was done until they came to dominate it entirely, periodially running off the original occupant altogether. In one case, an informant who stayed on after such encroachment (he was ultimately restricted to

one bedroom in the back of his house) awoke one morning to find the

house abandoned except for the dead body of one teenage vendor. He was

not only taken into custody by the police and threatened with a homicide

charge, but was eventually ‘severely beaten and left for dead by associates

of the murdered seller. The crack syndicate believed he had been responsible for “setting up” the house for a robbery by rivals.

Interview 69: Crack House. (33 years old, black, male, ex-convict,

assault)

I: I was 30 when I first tried crack. When I moved them into the

house, they were trying to get me on to the crack to keep the

money in their pocket. But what happened was, I wasn’t big on it,

but the women was pursuing the crack and then by them saying that

they wanted to do sexual favors or whatever. I ended up using the

crack with them. First time I smoked a rock was with the fellows

in the house. I didn’t get high the first time, it took me about 2

months before I started feeling the high. The women cuddled me

and eventually I started experiencing the high like it was supposed

to.

Eventually, the guys with the crack moved the heroin guys out due

to demand. By me adapting to crack, I started leaning toward the

crack guys and that is all they needed to push the other guys out. I

got everything I thought I wanted then, more money—$200—per

week, but I was my own best customer. I used the girls to drown

my sorrows with my wife. It started off good and then the guys

wanted to take my house over and I didn’t have any say-so, the

more I got addicted to the drugs. I got in contact with the guys

first by them walking up on my porch and approaching me. That

went on for about 30 days and then it started to get wild. The

young guys would have their crowd of people come by. The police

got involved because my house was a hangout. There wasn’t much

that I could do about it because I was caught up in my addiction.

One night me and this girl planned to get together. She told me to

pick up something, so I took about $100 worth off of my pay.

Went down there and was suppose to spend the night with her. I

79
stayed until about 2:00 in the morning with her and decided to go

back home. I was basically up for 24 hours and went home and

went to bed. The next morning I woke up to where somebody had

come into the house while I was sleeping and killed this young guy.

They left me in the house alive, they missed me. They beat this

kid with a baseball bat and robbed him. I woke up and found him

dead and called the police. And they took me downtown and kept

me overnight and had me under investigation for murder. They

discovered that the guy was killed during the time that I wasn’t

there. The guys that he was affiliated with thought I did it. I tried

to contact them when I got out to find out what happened. I got

attacked, they thinking I’m the one that had killed him and they

leave me for dead. I woke up 3 days later in the hospital. I had

been on the street for 2 or 3 days. Homicide knew I knew more

than I did, which I did. After I got the — beat out of me the

cops come back to me to tell them what I knew. I came up with

some distorted story. I didn’t know which way to go. I called the

police back and told them that I would give them the names of the

guys if they gave me protection. They said only if we get a

conviction. I knew I was a dead man and disappeared to the East

Side.

Some entrepreneurs who establish successful crack houses do well enough

to expand their operations to multiple sites. Higher level syndicate operatives who control more than one locale also develop management techniques

to control the operating staff of specific crack-house operations. The operatives they recruit to staff the expanded locations are people who come from

their already successful operations, old neighborhood friends, relatives, or

secondary sources who come to their attention by reference from these primary relationships. As a consequence, the management techniques are often

vaguely built on a combination of long-standing friendship, loyalty, and ties

of kinship. They are also based on various economic incentives, ranging

from rather formally defined franchise-type arrangements to familial generalized sharing. People who work as staff in a crack house may be paid a

salary, receive a straight percentage of the sales receipts, be entitled to

bonuses, be entitled to operate “side hustles” like providing pipes, torches

and the like for a fee (which they keep), or any permutation of these and

other reward arrangements. We have noted already that some operatives

may operate “side scams” or hustles such as “pinching” that can boost their

income. Some simply are allowed to live there and smoke all the crack

they want. Some are prohibited from any drug use on the job, but are free

off duty to smoke all they want (if they can pay for it). Some are fired if

their boss even hears rumors that they are using crack.

80
The Crack House as a Social Site

Crack houses described thus far are labeled austere and severe, as they seek

to eliminate all social interaction with clients except for the stark transfer of

crack and cash. On the opposite end of the spectrum are crack houses that

run a “blind pig” style of operation, relying on a social scene characterized

as “open” or “enhanced.” It stands in distinct contrast to the austere style

and represents a type of tavern culture, a social scene where one goes not

simply to acquire crack, but to smoke it with others, share it with others,

and accomplish other social goals. Socialization is valued to some degree

for its own rewards. People drawn to this type of operation are often

neighborhood associates, and such operations are often parochial. These

crack houses generally are not wide open. Entry is often selective, based

on prior relationships or accompaniment by a regular. In this type of crack

house, customers linger; thus the operators often provide other goods and

services, for which they charge a fee. Because operators permit, perhaps

even encourage, a variety of social interactions in addition to the drugsmoney exchange, such crack houses are a more complex and enriched sociological environment. This has important implications for the type of drugrelated behavior that occurs in them. Interview 75 is an example of a crack

house that permitted the purchase and consumption of crack by customers

onsite. As such, this type of crack house becomes a catchment of users.

In the words of one informant, it can be a “wild scene.”

Interview 75: Crack House. (31 years old, black, male, no criminal

record)

I: To initiate my contact, I moved in with a friend of mine from the

neighborhood. People would drop by and we would smoke a lot of

weed and it came a place where everybody dropped by to smoke

crack. We started to sell crack from his own. These people contacted us to sell it ’cause they could see traffic comin’ in and out.

We also tried to do certain things on the job. We didn’t sell for

notorious people. The side things we might be able to sell our own

sack in addition for selling for them.

R: How were you organized?

I: I didn’t like the scene of always caring a gun. Sometimes we

wouldn’t have to wear guns, we didn’t have too many people come

to the house that we didn’t know. People had to be referred before

we would sell to them. These guys came in the house and they

sometimes smoked in the house. They sit in the house hanging

around and sometimes had crowds. I couldn’t control my urge but

my partner could control his urge. We had a couple of bad scenes

where one time this neighbor from down the street and it was a few

brothers and some more guys getting high and . . . money came up

81
and he was pistol whipped and hospitalized. We really didn’t make

any money because we spent our money on smoke and supplying

our habits. We only wanted to have enough for us.

Interview 35: Crack House. (27 years old, black, female, no criminal

record)

R: Can you tell me about the scene in the dope house?

I: It is crazy. People are paranoid. It affects people in all kind of

different ways. Some can handle it and are cool and calm with it

but they scheme like you do on the next person in order to get their

next high from crack. Others are so paranoid, running in and out

of closets and moving around the house, can’t talk when they get

high. Some are scared of you when you are getting high, as you

don’t know what they are going to do next or what they are thinking about. Males you are really scared of as they might pull out a

gun and I don’t put nothing pass any of them. My worst experience watching this particular guy go through hallucinations because

he was speed bombing. But he was injecting cocaine and was injecting heroin and smoking crack cocaine. He was hallucinating

about people being in the house, in the closet and —. I should

have been dead a long time ago, ’cause I went through that shit

personally, walking around the house with knives, cutting lights on

and off, which makes other people scared. This will happen to

everybody eventually, but it takes some people longer than others. I

wasn’t scared when I started, but after being with him he has made

me scared and getting scared by myself since I am smoking by myself. But it started with him and affects everybody. I couldn’t stay

in the dope house too long. I kept myself supplied from my wages

and through my boyfriend. I was not involved in any kind of crime

myself.

Because of the nature of this type of operation, a lot of collateral enterprises are possible. This style of operation may vend crack pipes (or rent

them), provide baking soda, liquor, torches, and other substances like marijuana. These are provided for a fee. These operations are also locales

where it is often possible for customers to exchange as barter a variety of

items for crack. Thus these operations function as fences for stolen material. This next series of excerpts illustrates a variety of activities regarding

the tavern-style crack house, its methods of operation, and the general

quality of social experience associated with crackhouse operations. Interview 03, while somewhat cryptic, reveals several interesting dynamics. For

example, fixed locales permit the reception and utilization of barter (drugs

for various commodities as exchange). Also, the commingling of customers

under one roof creates a new dynamic to social interaction within the crack

house.

82
Interview 3: Crack House. (27 years old, white, male, no criminal record)

R: What was the dope house Scene like?

I: Filled up with a bunch a people smokin’ it.

R: Did you just buy and take off?

I: Sometimes I’d smoke at houses.

R: Were people friendly to each other? Did they just ignore each

other?

I: They’re gonna be friendly because like, this is a kitchen table, and

they’re all sittin’ around it. And they gotta be nice, ’cause they

want a piece of yours if they’re out, you know.

R: So guys hang out there with no money?

I: Yeah. After they spent all theirs and wanted some more, you

know.

R: They (the operators) didn’t throw these guys out?

I: Not all the time. Normally, the guy of the house would buy things,

like TVs and —, so the guys in the house would go steal.

R: So the place also had merchandise. Could you buy it if you

wanted?

I: I could, but I never tried though, you know.

R: Did you see that happen? Was the guy running the house also

fencing?

I: You can bet he was. But he smoked too.

R: Ever see any guns?

I: Oh yeah. Shoot, definitely. This one guy I know, he’d have to go

three blocks to cop more. When he ran out to get more, he’d walk

down the street with his gun, you know, to get more. Dangerous.

It really is.

R: Ever see any violence?

I: Not ever.

83
R: They try to keep it under control?

I: Yeah. When the house is full they walk around with a shotgun and

stuff. It’s crazy.

R: What about getting out of there?

I: Sometimes there’s problems, you know. They got wires on the

doors and windows and you gotta wait till they’re ready to open.

They’re always paranoid, lookin’ for cops—

R: Ever worry about getting ripped off when people watched you come

out of the house?

I: Oh yeah.

R: Did you carry a gun yourself?

I: No I never did.

R: You just took your chances and moved quick?

I: For a white boy, yeah.

Interviews 4 and 13 reveal in more detail the same set of dynamics.

Tavern-style crack houses are characterized by a collateral paraphernalia

industry. They are characterized by impoverished customers trying to

mooch, hustle, or inveigle some crack from customers who are not yet fiscally exhausted, and by conspiratorial behavior centered around combined

efforts to leave the crack house to raise more money and return for more

crack. They are also characterized by a great degree of tension and potential for violence, enough to require some form of established security to

regulate the social interaction itself.

Interview 4: Crack Home. (39 years old, black, male, ex-convict, larceny)

R: Tell me about your experiences in the crack houses.

I: You have people sitting around smoking. You have people sitting

around hustling. Trying to rent out they pipes, trying to get you to

let them get the pipes.

R: Why should you?

I: ’Cause someday you might be short and you’ll need to get theirs.

All they want is a good customer with money . . . and they want

you to spend it all right now.

84
R:

I:

R:

I:

R:

I:

R:

I:

R:

I:

R:

I:

R:

I:

But these people don’t have any more money, right?

Eventually, they gonna come on back. Where if a person ain’t

never got nothing, you know, they eventually gonna get booted out.

Would it be inappropriate to say that some people like the society,

like the company, that in addition to the fact that we know they’re

there for the drug they’re consuming, but part of it was some

people say something like a ritual?

Yeah. Also a place to get together with somebody to go do something, to get some more. I know we can do so and so. A place

where a lot of things get conjured up.

What about the fear factor?

They usually have a doorman that carries a gun. But even so it’s

not really necessary ’cause you very seldom see too much trouble.

It’s like this is where you come to get on, this is where you come

to get high. And if you gonna be a trouble maker or if you gonna

get into these things, it’s gonna be away someplace else. That’s

just like a code, you know.

Is there, as a last resort, a guy whose job it is to keep things in

line?

Yeah. In case of a stickup, you know, ’cause they do have

stickups.

Do they frisk you for a gun?

I have been frisked at times, but normally the place you go, they

don’t frisk you for guns.

Were these guys worried about cops?

More scared about a user.

So that would rank higher in terms of concern than the fact that the

police could come in and bust?

Yeah. But the reality is there that the police could come. You

have more rip-offs and stickups than you have busts.

85
Interview 13: Crack House. (27 years old, black, male, ex-convict,

homicide)

R: Can you describe the scene in the crack house?

I: Man, that’s a wild scene in a crack house. It be dependin’ on what

type of house you got. I would let people come in there, pay to

smoke, supply ‘em with pipe, charge ‘em to use it, charge ‘em for

the rum and they could just spend they money and — and smoke.

But I wouldn’t do that now.

As operators of austere crack operations would be quick to point out, the

tavern-culture crack house has an intrinsic weakness. It exposes the operators and customers to each other in a relatively intimate and extended

fashion, and this makes them, to varying degrees, more vulnerable to violence, crime, and danger. Interview 39 demonstrates the reality of this

problem.

Interview 39: Crack House. (34 years old, black, male, ex-convict, auto

theft)

I: I got to selling it because he had too many people comin’ around,

so he had to start spreading it out . . . While selling it I wasn’t

worried about security at all I did get robbed and it tripped me

out. It was a customer. We were working the street and I was so

comfortable to the fact that people would say to me that I had too

much business. I had whores and they were my biggest clientele. I

had 20 or 30, and they was buying anywhere from $50 or $60

worth a dope. I had about $400 of their business. To me that was

superb, I was content. People was bringing me stuff that was

stolen, I was buying —. I would get certain items if I needed

something. I knew a girl that was a booster, she would come to

me and ask what clothes and size clothes you need, would boost it

and bring it back the next day. And I would supply with her habit.

R: How did you get robbed?

I: I normally don’t let nobody in my house, but this guy I knew was

with this other guy and I let them both in. I peeped it and couldn’t

close the door knowing I had another guy in the house with me.

He had the gun and at this time he went to the store. They tied

me up and put me in the closet and shit and tagged me on my head

with the gun. Some other guys that I work with they just happen

to come and check on me and busted in the apartment and started

chasing the guys and caught them about 2 or 3 days later. They

didn’t get their money back but gave them a real ass-kicking.

86
Informants report that crack house customers will meet, smoke, exhaust

their funds, conspire, leave, commit a property crime, return with the merchandise, exchange it for crack, and then begin the whole process over

again. Men and women who frequent crack houses have often reported

exchanging sex for crack (these women are sometimes called “bust-out

girls”). In these exchanges, it is the female who provides the sex for a

male. Male prostitution for crack, either to other males or females, is not

reported within this group. These reported exchanges are between the

female customer and other male customers in the crack house. If they go

to another room to “freak” (to have sex), the crack house operator typically

charges a room-use fee. Both male and female informants reported sex-fordrugs exchanges within the context of the tavern-style crack house. While

it is obvious that such exchanges can occur in isolation and in solitary

settings on the street, the catchment effect of the crack house appears to

concentrate that activity, and may elevate the levels of sexual exchange

simply by the situational structure and convenience that the house itself

provides. For example, although the basic operation of the crack house

described by the informant in interview 55 would be categorized as austere,

exceptions were made when it came to using the facility for sexual exchange purposes.

Interview 55: Crack House. (26 years old, black, male, no criminal

record)

I: Yeah. I shifted from powder to rock and my life . . . it was like

night and day. It was totally new people that I was meetin’, not

good people. I mean it was folks out there, people I was meetin’,

thugs, I was meetin’ just all kind of people, real drug addicts,

people that would rob you, people that would take all your money.

Me and another guy had gotten together and we was sellin’ coke in

this apartment building. We sold coke in this apartment building

for a whole year. Now this apartment building had four floors up

in it, OK? We went from the first floor, to second floor, to the

third floor, to the fourth floor and we always was movin’ to different units, just movin’ around like flies sellin’ rock. And then all of

a sudden they was gettin’ hip onto the inside of this building so we

found out they was gonna make a raid on the whole building. The

thing was that we was always runnin’ from the police all the time.

R: How did you operate out of this building?

I: OK We had . . . OK, you go to Radio Shack and you buy these

head sets with the mike and everything. We got two guys down on

each corner and we got a guy up in the window on the fourth floor

lookin’ out, watchin’ out for the police. And the guys who got the

sack on ‘em in the hallway or in the apartment got one at his ears.

So everybody could stay in communication, no matter what. If the

87
police pulls in front of the building, we let ‘em know. If they pull

in the alley, we let ‘em know. If they riding past we let ‘em

know, if they ride past and stop, we let ‘em know. When they in

the building, that when everythin’ shift down. You don’t answer

the door or nothin’. The guy in the window came up out the window. The guy on the outside stayed and kept you in touch on what

was goin on.

R: Could customers smoke in the joint?

I: No. None of that. I didn’t allow that. A female that wanted to

get off somebody rent her, so we’d give it to her. But she couldn’t

smoke. She had to do what she had to do and go.

R: Females that didn’t have money would exchange sex for drugs?

These ladies could have sex in the crack house, but no smoking?

I: Yeah.

It is interesting to note the utilization of technology described by the informant in interview 55. We have previously noted that phone pagers are

important technical devices. This utilization of short-range radios and other

technology such as radio scanners may also be important emerging selling

strategies as well. The theme of sex-for-crack as exchange is also demonstrated in interview 27.

Interview 27: Crack House. (33 years old, black, male, no criminal

record)

R: Can you tell me something about the crack-house scene?

I: If I didn’t know them (the dealers) someone would turn me on or I

would go with somebody. If it was someone I knew, I would sit

around and mingle, look at the ball game, and I’m spending my

money, and they throwing me something, saying “Hey man, put that

with yours.” Some of them would be women. I’d get with the

females and I’d get a little crack for a little sex or whatever. That

would keep me there. It all depends on the environment and the

people. I still had insight on that. I knew where I was comfortable

at.

Interview 95 is a similar description, but it involves a report by a female

informant. It typifies the character of female reports in this regard. The

sequence usually involves a female appearing at a crack house with some

money and making a cash purchase of some crack. After exhausting her

supply, she would then begin to seek alternative methods to obtain crack,

which eventually, if not immediately, involved bartering sex for crack.

88
Given the extensive periods of time over which crack consumption activity

can extend, the potential for extraordinary numbers of discrete, sequential

sexual encounters is enormous. The implication for the epidemiology of

sexually transmitted diseases (SIDs) and the human immunodeficiency virus

(HIV) is that hypersexuality may be characteristic of this style of crack

house. As a consequence, communities in which tavern-culture crack

houses are popular may suffer increased rates of both STDs and HIV.

Interview 95: Crack House. (33 years old, black, female, no criminal

record)

R: Tell me about the crack house.

I: I needed about $300 a day, but smoked about 20 a day. When I

bought on my own I bought and smoked in a dope house. The

scene is very bad. It is nasty. They didn’t have any running water,

no beds to sleep on. Just dirty, filthy with rats and roaches. But

when you get like that all you want to do is hang out around the

cain. So I would hang out for about a week at a time. I didn’t eat

during this time and barely drunk water. I turned tricks in the dope

house for the rocks. I have never been in a dope house when it

was raided, but was once coming from a dope house to my boyfriend’s house and his house was being raided.

SUMMARY

This chapter identified three methods by which crack cocaine is distributed

at the retail level: the street-comer or walk-up sales system, the runners

and beepermen system, and the crack house. The chapter devoted primary

attention to the crack house, because it appears as the most popular method

for distribution. In examining the crack house, it is noted that there are

identifiable styles of crack-house operations. If the quality and quantity of

social interaction, as well as the situation in which sellers posture themselves, are taken as indices, then a typology can be created characterizing

crack-house operations. One end of the scale is an austere method in

which social interaction between buyer and seller is severely restricted; on

the other, crack houses operate as tavern-style exchange locations, which

include socialization above and beyond that required for the exchange of

money for crack. The nature of these exchanges are themselves important,

since they involve social behaviors that are of concern.

One concern is the degree and nature of violence as it is associated with

drug abuse. The data in this chapter describe some ways in which violence

appears within the crack subculture. This violence comes from multiple

sources, but some prominent ones appear to be the businesslike operations

of crack distribution, the personal disorganization that surrounds and characterizes the crack-consuming environment, and the distortions of character

89
that crack users describe as often accompanying significant binges of crack

consumption. Distributors use violence to control situations. Violence is

most prominently used for security at the point of retail sale, to periodically

resolve conflicts with rivals, and to discipline employees when necessary.

Insofar as it is described by this group of informants, crack as a social phenomenon is tied to violent and abusive behavior.

This chapter reports on behaviors that, although not traditionally violent, are

of concern and bear upon public health and safety. Tavern-style crack

houses may encourage and make possible hypersexuality among participants

and thus increase STD and HIV risks. The use of barter as a supplement

to a cash economy in the crack trade represents further complications in

creating social policies in reaction to this behavior. A range of other illegal

and problematic behaviors was also described, illustrating the complexity of

interactions that constitute the life of street-level crack users.

The social policies that may be called for in response to these social events

are not simple and are most certainly not defined by these particular data.

Nonetheless, review of the literature establishes that a basic ethnographic

description of the hard-core crack user and user-dealer is scarce. It is hard

to imagine that solid and workable policies can be created without significant information on the quality and holistic elements of the crack-using

population.

REFERENCES

Caplowitz, D. The Working Addict. New York: The Graduate School of

City University of New York, 1976.

Geberth, V. The Quarterkids. Law and Order 20(9):27-38, 1978.

Goldstein, P. Getting over: Economic alternatives to predatory crime

among street drug users. In: Inciardi, J., ed. The Drugs-Crime Connection. Hollywood, CA: Sage, 1981. pp. 67-84.

Hanson, B.; Beschner, G.; Walters, J.; and Bovelle, E. Life with Heroin.

Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 1985.

Hagedorn, J.M. People and Folks. Chicago: Lakeview Press, 1988.

Inciardi, J. The War on Drugs. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Press,

1986.

Johnson, B.; Goldstein, P.; Preble, E.; Schmeidler, J.; Lipton, D.; Spunt, B.;

and Miller, T. Taking Care of Business: The Economics of Crime by

Heroin Abusers. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 1985.

Johnson, B.; Hamid, A.; Morales, E.; and Sanabria, H. Critical dimensions

of crack distribution. Presented at the American Society of Criminology

Annual Meetings, Montreal, PQ, 1987.

Mieczkowski, T. Understanding life in the crack culture. NIJ Reports

217:7-11, 1989.

Mieczkowski, T. Geeking up and throwing down: Heroin street life in

Detroit. Criminology 24(4):645-667, 1986.

90
Nurco, D.; Ball, J.; Shaffer, J.; and Hanlon, T. The criminality of narcotics

addicts. J Nerv Ment Dis 173:94-102, 1985.

Pearson, G. The New Heroin Users. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1987.

Preble, E., and Casey, J. Taking Care of Business: The Heroin User’s

Life on the Street. Int J Addict 4:1-24, 1969.

Redlinger, L. Marketing and Distributing Heroin. J Psychedelic Drugs

7(4):331-353, 1975.

Wepner, R. Street Ethnography. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Press, 1977.

AUTHOR

Tom Mieczkowski, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Department of Criminology

University of South Florida

140 Seventh Avenue South

St. Petersburg, FL 33701

91
The Crack-Violence Connection

Within a Population of Hard-Core

Adolescent Offenders

James A. Inciardi

INTRODUCTION

Given the recent concerns over the perceived rising rates of drug-related

violence in many inner-city neighborhoods across the Nation, this analysis

focuses on the various types of violence associated with crack use and

crack distribution in Dade County (Miami), F’L. The data are drawn from a

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)-funded study of adolescent drug

users conducted from 1985 to 1988, with followup interviews during 1989

with crack users and dealers in Miami’s inner-city communities.

In 1985, few people nationally had ever heard of crack cocaine, but it was

already a problem in Miami and Dade County (Inciardi 1987). Awareness

of this problem permitted crack to be included in the drug history section of

a planned interview schedule for a street study of adolescent drug use and

crime. The focus of the research was not crack per se but rather the drugtaking and drug-seeking behaviors of some 600 Miami youths who were

“seriously delinquent.” Serious delinquency was defined as having committed, during the 12-month period prior to interview, no less than 10 FBI

“Index” offenses’, or 100 lesser crimes. A second criteria for inclusion in

the study was the regular use of one or more illegal drugs at any time during the 90-day period prior to interview. Regular drug use was defined as

use at least three times a week.

One of the rationales for the study, which is of particular importance for

this technical review on drugs and violence, is that most systematic studies

of delinquency in recent years have focused on representative populations of

either adolescents in general or juvenile offenders in particular (Elliott et al.

1985; Thornberry et al. 1985; Dembo et al., this volume). Although these

investigations have provided the research community with important data

on issues relating to drugs, delinquency, and youth crime, little has been

92
generated that is descriptive of the extremely hard-core populations of adolescent drug-using criminals. This study was specifically designed to reach

a segment of that population. Moreover, it is in such a population that high

levels of drug-related violence are most likely.

METHOD

Research subjects were located through multiple-starting-point “snowball

sampling” techniques in Miami and Dade County neighborhoods where drug

use and crime rates were high (Inciardi 1986). During the data collection

phase of the study, a total of 611 youths meeting the selection criteria were

contacted and interviewed. As indicated in table 1, some 83.6 percent were

males, and 16.4 percent were females; 41.4 percent were white, 42.2 percent

were black, and 16.4 percent were Hispanic. Although blacks (who make

up 15 percent of the Dade County population) are overrepresented in the

sample, and Hispanics (44 percent of the Dade County population) are considerably underrepresented, this racial-ethnic distribution is not unlike that

found in other studies of the Miami drug scene (Inciardi 1986; Inciardi and

Pottieger 1986; McBride and McCoy 1981; McCoy et al. 1979). These 611

youths had a mean age of 15 years, with the largest proportion in the 16-to17-year cohort. Although 71 percent were still attending school at the time

of interview, 537 or 87.9 percent had been either suspended or expelled

from school at least once, with such disciplinary actions typically resulting

from drug use or drug sales on school premises. Finally, whereas only

1.3 percent of these youths were living alone, 521 or 85.3 percent were

living with one or more members of their own family.

Drug Use and Criminal Histories

All of the youths interviewed had extensive histories of multiple drug use

with identifiable patterns of onset and progression. As illustrated by the

mean ages reported in table 2, they began their drug-using careers at age

7.6 years with alcohol experimentation, followed by their first alcohol intoxication more than a year later. Experimentation with marijuana began at

age 10.4 years, with the regular use (three or more times a week) of both

marijuana (100 percent of the sample) and alcohol (53.7 percent of the

sample) within a year thereafter. Experimentation with cocaine, speed,

heroin, and prescription depressants occurred during the 12th year, with

93.3 percent moving on to the regular use of cocaine by age 13. Their first

use of crack cocaine occurred at a mean age of 13.6 years, and, by age 14,

85.6 percent of the sample considered themselves to be regular users of the

drug.

It would appear from the data in table 3 that the criminal careers of these

611 youths emerged more or less in tandem with their drug-using careers.

Their first crimes occurred at a mean age of 11 years. Notably, more

than 90 percent had engaged in drug sales and thefts before age 12, and

93
TABLE 1. Selected characteristics of 611 Miami and Dade County hardcore adolescent offenders

Characteristic Percent N

Age

12-13 years

14-15 years

16-17 years

Mean age=15 years

Sex

Males

Females

Ethnicity

Black

White

Hispanic

School Status

Grades 5-8

Grades 9-10

Grades 11-12

Dropped Out

Graduated High School

Mean Grades Completed=8.5 grades

Ever Suspended or Expelled

from School

For Drug Use

For Drug Sales

For Other Crime

For Any Reason

Mean Number of Suspensions or

Expulsions=2.6 times

Currently Living With

Own Family

Other Family

Sex Partner

Friends

Alone

19.6 120

38.5 235

41.9 256

83.6 511

16.4 100

42.2 258

41.4 253

16.4 100

26.5 162

33.4 204

11.1 68

28.6 175

0.3 2

82.2 502

46.6 285

26.2 160

87.9 537

85.3 521

2.0 12

5.2 32

6.2 38

1.3 8

NOTE: Owing to their low visibility and limited numbers in Miami’s street community of adolescent

drug users, females in the 12-to-13-year cohort and Hispanic females were excluded from the

sampling frame of this study.

94
TABLE 2. Drug-use histories of 611 Miami and Dade County hard-core

adolescent offenders: Mean ages at onset and percentages

involved

Drug Used Mean Age Percent Involved

Alcohol

First Use 7.6 100.0

First High 8.8 99.5

First Regular Use 11.0 53.7

Marijuana

First Use 10.4 100.0

First Regular Use 11.4 100.0

Cocaine

First Use 12.3 99.2

First Regular Use 13.0 93.3

Heroin

First Use 12.8 56.5

First Regular Use 12.7 16.2

Prescription Depressants

First Use

First Regular Use

12.6 75.8

13.2 44.7

Speed

First Use 12.7 59.9

First Regular Use 13.6 14.9

crack

First Use

First Regular Use

13.6 95.7

14.0 85.6

64 percent had participated in a robbery by age 13. In addition, 90 percent

had histories of arrest and 45.5 percent had been incarcerated; however,

only 13.4 percent reported any substance abuse treatment.

Current Drug Use and Crime

All of the youths in this population were daily users of at least one drug.

Table 4 illustrates the depth of their drug use during the 90-day period prior

to interview. Marijuana was used three or more times a week by 95 percent of the sample, 64.2 percent used some form of cocaine daily, and all

95
TABLE 3. Crime and criminal justice histories of 611 Miami and Dade

County hard-core adolescent offenders: Mean ages and

percentages involved

Percent

Crime Mean Age Ever Involved

Any Type of Crime

First Ever

Start Regular*

Drug Sales

First Marijuana Sale

First Other Drug Sale

Start Regular

11.0

12.5 99.7

11.5 94.9

12.5 89.7

12.7 91.7

Theft

First Time

Start Regular

11.7 98.5

12.8 85.9

Prostitution

First Time

Start Regular

Robbery

First Time

First One Armed

Tenth Time

12.6 19.5

12.8 14.6

12.9 64.5

14.1 17.5

13.7 38.5

Arrest

First Time 12.1 90.0

Adjudication

First Time 12.8 74.1

Incarceration

First Time 13.5 45.5

Drug and Alcohol Treatment

First Entry 14.2

*Regular=3 or more times per week, 150 or more times for the year.

13.4

but 9 percent used at least one coca product (powder cocaine, crack cocaine, or coca paste) three or more times a week. By contrast, the use of

96
TABLE 4. Current drug use among 611 Miami and Dade County hardcore adolescent offenders

Drug Used Frequency Percent Using

Alcohol Daily 16.4

Regular 30.6

Occasional 48.9

No use 4.1

Marijuana

Prescription-Type

Depressants

Powder Cocaine

Crack

All Forms of Cocaine*

Speed

Heroin (IV)

Daily 82.0

Regular 13.4

Occasional 4.6

Regular 22.4

Occasional 44.7

No use 32.9

Daily 14.2

Regular 29.3

Occasional 54.5

No use 1.9

Daily 39.6

Regular 29.8

Occasional 23.9

No use 6.7

Daily 64.2

Regular 27.0

Occasional 7.2

No use 1.7

Regular 1.1

Occasional 31.0

No use 67.9

Daily 3.9

Regular 2.9

Occasional 36.5

No use 56.6

*Includes cocaine, crack, and/or basuco (coca paste).

speed or heroin was relatively uncommon. Only 3.9 percent of the sample

reported using heroin daily.

97
Table 5 presents a number of interesting insights into the criminal activity

of these youths. Unquestionably, their criminal involvement is considerable.

They reportedly perpetrated some 429,136 criminal acts during the 12-

month-period prior to interview-an average of 702 offenses per subject.

Although this figure might seem astronomical at first glance, analysis indicates that the majority of offenses are clustered in what are often referred

to as “drug related” and other “less serious” crime. For example, some

59.9 percent were “drug business” offenses—the manufacture, transportation,

and sale of drugs. Manufacture typically involved the small-scale production of crack for either personal use or for street-level sale. Transportation

involved the delivery of drugs (typically crack) from dealers and crack

houses to customers, the steering of customers to dealers, or the communication of customers’ orders to dealers and crack houses. Sales were almost

exclusively in small rather than bulk amounts. In addition, some 10.2 percent of the offenses involved prostitution or pimping, 11.6 percent were

individual incidents of shoplifting, and 11.1 percent were stolen-goods offenses. As such, a total of 92.8 percent of these 429,136 offenses involved

drug law violations, vice, shoplifting, and dealing in stolen property.

This should not suggest, however, that these youths do not commit serious

crimes. The sheer volume of their criminal acts suggests that they do.

They were responsible for some 18,477 major felonies. Among these felonies were 6,269 robberies and 721 assaults. Although the majority of these

robberies were purse snatches, a significant number were armed robberies in

homes, shops, and on the street. In fact, some 88.4 percent of the sample

reported carrying weapons most or all of the time, and more than half of

these carried handguns.

The Drugs-Violence Connection

The general relationship between drugs and violence within this population

can be examined within the context of Goldstein’s (1985) conceptual framework of the psychopharmacological, economic compulsive, and systemic

models of violence.

Psychopharmacologic Violence. The psychopharmacological model of violence suggests that some individuals, as the result of short-term or long-term

use of certain drugs may become excitable, irrational, and exhibit violent

behavior. Of the sample, 5.4 percent reported involvement in this form of

violence at least once during the 12-month period prior to interview. Interestingly, only 4.6 percent reported being the victims of psychopharmacological violence during this same period. In either case, the impatience and

irritability associated with drug withdrawal or the paranoia and edginess

associated with stimulant abuse were the typical causes of this behavior.

During mid-1989, a 17-year-old daily crack user summed up both situations:

It doesn’t seem to matter whether you’re on or off crack

. . . you’re crazy both times. If you’re high, you think

98
TABLE 5. Criminal activity &ring the 12-month period prior to interview

among 611 Miami and Dade County hard-core adolescent

offendes: Total crimes and percentages involved

Offense Number Percent Percentage Involved

Major Felonies 18,477 4.3 78.1

Robberies 6,269 1.5 59.1

Assaults 721 .2 14.9

Burglaries 10,070 2.3 68.2

Motor Vehicle Thefts 1,417 .3 42.1

Property crimes* 109,538 25.5 98.2

shoplifting 49,582 11.6 93.3

Theft From Vehicle 2,720 .6 58.3

Pickpocketing 552 .l 9.7

Prostitute’s Theft 3,005 .7 13.6

Other Larcenies 949 .2 3.8

Confidence Games 925 .2 24.7

Forgery (any) 3,635 .8 30.3

Stolen Goods Offenses 47,572 11.1 80.5

Property Destruction 383 <.1 28.8

Other 215 <.1 0.7

Vice Offenses 43, 10.2 26.8

Prostitution 38,044 8.9 17.5

Procuring 5,918 1.3 20.1

Drug Business**

Total

257,159

429,136

59.9 96.l

100.0 100.0

*Forgery (any) includes checks, credit cards, and prescriptions; stolen goods includes selling, trading,

and buying to resell; property destruction includes arson (actually, a major felony) but is almost

entirely vandalism

**Drug Business includes the manufacture, transportation, and sale of drugs.

someone’s goin’ ta do something to you, or try an’ take

your stuff. If you’re comin’ down or are waiting to make

a buy or just get off, you seem to get upset easy . . . A

lot of people been cut just because somebody looked at

them funny or said somethin’ stupid.

Economic Compulsive Violence. The economic compulsive model of violence holds that some drug users engage in economically oriented violent

crimes to support their costly drug use. As already indicated in table 5,

59.1 percent of the sample (n=361) participated in 6,669 robberies during

99
the 12-month period prior to interview, the majority of which were committed to purchase drugs. In addition, whereas 24.1 percent of the sample

indicated that they had robbed drugs from users or dealers, 39.9 percent

reported that they had been the victims of a drug robbery.

Systemic Violence. The systemic model of violence maintains that violent

crime is intrinsic to involvement with any illicit substance. Systemic violence refers to the traditionally aggressive patterns of interaction within the

systems and networks of illegal drug trafficking and distribution. According

to this definition, 9.0 percent of the sample reported being victims of systemic violence, and 8.3 percent were perpetrators of such violence. Typically, violence emerged in this population from fights resulting from territorial disputes, the sale of poor quality drugs, and “messing up the money.”

To this can be added the execution in 1987 of two crack user-dealers in

Miami’s Liberty City community who were suspected to be police informants. As the reported perpetrator of these homicides indicated:

I’m not sayin’ when I did it, how I did it, or where I did

it. But I will say why. Because they were cheatin’, lyin’

— takin’ money from cops and sellin’ out . . . So I was

told to teach ‘em a good lesson, and make a good example

of ’em.2

The Crack-Violence Connection

Interviewing for this study began during the early months of 1986, and preliminary analyses showed a high prevalence of crack use. Of the fiit 308

youths interviewed, for example, 95.5 percent reported having used crack at

least once, and 87.3 percent reported current regular use. These figures

prompted the design of a supplementary crack data instrument, which was

ultimately used during the final 254 interviews from October 1986 through

November 1987.

The differences between this subset and the 611 cases already described are

minimal, a function of the fact that, although they were an average of 3

months older than the total sample, they were drawn from the same locales.

However, the additional data collected provided an opportunity to examine

violence within a wider context of crack distribution.

In the supplementary data collection instrument all of these 254 youths

were questioned about their participation in crack distribution. All but 50

(19.7 percent) had some level of involvement. Of the youths, 20 (7.9 percent) had only minor involvement-they sold the drug only to their friends,

worked for dealers as lookouts and “spotters,” or steered customers to one

of Miami and Dade County’s approximately 700 crack houses. Most of the

youths (138 or 54.3 percent) were crack dealers, involved directly in retail

sales of crack. Finally, 46 subjects (18.1 percent) were designated as

100
“dealer+,” since they not only sold the drug, but also manufactured,

smuggled, or wholesaled it.

By examining drug use within the context of a youth’s level of involvement

with the crack business, a number of relationships quickly become evident.

As indicated in table 6, for example, the greater a youth’s involvement in

the crack business, the more likely was the daily or at least regular use of

such drugs as marijuana, depressants, and crack. Whereas 66 percent of the

youths with no business involvement were daily users of marijuana, this

proportion increased to 80 percent for those with minor involvement, 91.3

percent for dealers, and 100 percent for those in the dealer+ group. The

most pronounced differences are apparent with crack use, with the proportions using the drug daily ranging from 2 percent of those with no crack

business involvement to 87 percent of those in the dealer+ group. When

viewing all forms of cocaine collectively, this range of proportions of daily

users increases to 16 percent of those with no involvement to 95.7 percent

in the dealer+ group.

The only data in table 6 not following the same general trend in proportions

of daily users relates to powder cocaine. None in the dealer+ group and

only 2.9 percent of the dealers were daily users of cocaine, and only 8.7

percent and 21 percent, respectively, were regular users. Therefore, there

were considerably more daily and regular users of powder cocaine among

those having little or no involvement. The reason for this difference is the

fact that, whereas crack was the cocaine of choice among 93.5 percent of

those in the dealer+ group, it was the cocaine of choice for only 28.6 percent of those with no crack business involvement.

Table 7 shows a clear relationship between a youth’s proximity to the crack

market and his or her overall position in the street worlds of drug use and

crime, including violent crime. It would appear, for example, that the more

involved a youth is in crack distribution, the younger he or she first committed a crime, was first arrested, and was convicted and incarcerated For

example, whereas youths with no involvement in the crack business first

used drugs at a mean age of 12.6 years, committed their first crime at 11.7

years, experienced their first arrest at 12.8 years, and were first incarcerated

at 14.2 years, the corresponding mean ages for these same events in the

dealer+ group were 10.6, 10.3, 11.1, and 12.8, respectively. Moreover, the

nearer the proximity to the crack market, the higher the likelihood of an

early history of a first arrest resulting in incarceration.

In terms of the extent of criminal involvement during 1 year prior to interview, once again, those more involved in crack distribution had greater

levels of crime commission. As indicated in table 8, for example, greater

proportions of those closely tied to the crack business were involved in

major felonies and property offenses than those more distant from the crack

101
TABLE 6. Current drug use by crack business involvement among 234

Miami and Dade County hard-core adolescent offenders

Drug Used

Crack Business Involvement Total

None Minor Dealer Dealer+ Sample

(n=50) (n=20) (n=138) (n=46) (n=254)

Alcohol

Daily 4.0

Regular 14.0

Occasional 78.8

No Use 4.0

Marijuana

Daily

Regular

Occasional

66.0

30.0

4.0

Prescription-Type Depressants

Regular 2.0

Occasional 56.0

No Use 42.0

Cocaine Powder

Daily

Regular

Occasional

No Use

10.0

44.0

36.0

10.0

Crack

Daily 2.0

Regular 26.0

Occasional 48.0

No Use 24.0

All Forms of Cocaine*

Daily 16.0

Regular 58.0

Occasional 16.0

No Use 10.0

5.0

15.0

80.0

0.0

80.0

20.0

0.0

5.0

55.0

40.0

15.0

60.0

25.0

0.0

5.0

50.0

45.0

0.0

30.0

70.0

0.0

0.0

7.2 8.7 6.7

39.9 56.5 35.8

48.6 34.8 54.3

4.3 0.0 3.1

91.3 100.0 87.0

6.5 0.0 11.0

2.2 0.0 2.0

32.6 50.0 27.6

52.9 36.9 50.8

14.5 13.0 21.7

2.9 0.0 4.7

21.0 8.7 26.4

76.1 91.3 66.9

0.0 0.0 2.0

70.3 87.0 54.7

15.2 6.5 18.5

14.5 6.5 22.1

0.0 0.0 4.7

82.6 95.7 67.7

17.4 2.2 26.8

0.0 2.2 3.5

0.0 0.0 2.0

*Includes cocaine, crack or basuco (coca paste).

trades. The major exception to this pattern involved the vice offenses, due

primarily to the extremely small proportions of females in the sample.3

102
TABLE 7. Crime and criminal justice histories by crack business involvement of 234 Miami and Dade County hard-core adolescent

offenders: Mean ages and percentages involved

Crime

Crack Business Involvement Total

None Minor Dealer Dealer+ Sample

(n=50) (n=20) (n=138) (n=46) (n=254)

Drug Sale

First Marijuana

Percent Ever

First Other

Percent Ever

Start Regular

Percent Ever

Theft

First Time

Percent Ever

Start Regular

Percent Ever

Crime (Earliest)*

First Time

Start Regular

Percent Ever

Regular

Arrest

First

Percent Ever

Adjudication

12.6 12.3 10.1 9.9 10.6

86.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.2

13.1 13.1 11.2 11.3 11.7

70.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.1

13.7 13.4 11.4 11.5 12.0

84.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.9

12.0 12.6 10.8 10.7 11.2

94.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.8

13.4 13.5 11.7 11.7 12.0

74.0 55.0 89.9 100.0 85.8

11.7 12.1 9.8 9.7 10.3

13.2 13.2 11.2 11.2 11.7

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

12.8 13.1 10.6 10.4 11.1

68.0 100.0 98.6 93.5 91.7

First Arrest Result- 14.1

ing in Adjudication

Percent Ever 20.0

Incarceration

First 14.2

Percent Ever 12.0

Treatment for Drug/Alcohol

First Entry N/A

Percent Ever 0.0

14.6 10.9 10.9 11.3

45.0 84.8 93.5 70.5

15.0 12.6 12.8 12.8

25.0 61.6 71.7 50.8

N/A 13.2 13.0 13.1

0.0 4.3 8.7 3.9

*First=age at time of first such occurrence, whether for drug sales, theft, prostitution, or robbery;

regular=10th occurrence for robbery, 3 or more times a week for others.

103
TABLE 8. Criminal activity during the 12-month period prior to interview,

by crack business involvement, among 234 Miami and Dade

County hard-core adolescent offenders percentage involved)

Offense

Crack Business Involvement Total

None Minor Dealer Dealer+ Sample

(n=50) (n=20) (n=138) (n=46) (n=254)

Major Felonies 44.0

Robbery 12.0

Assaults 4.0

Burglary 24.0

Motor Vehicle Theft 30.0

Property Offenses* 94.0

Shoplifting 90.0

Theft From Vehicle 34.0

Pickpocketing 2.0

Prostitute’s Theft 8.0

Other Larcenies 4.0

Con Games 6.0

Forgery (Any) 10.0

Stolen Goods 76.0

Property Destruction 16.0

Other Crimes 0.0

Vice Offenses 18.0

Prostitution 18.0

Procuring 4.0

Drug Business 86.0

(Any Drug)

65.0

40.0

0.0

25.0

35.0

95.0

95.0

30.0

5.0

5.0

0.0

5.0

5.0

85.0

0.0

0.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

100.0

87.7

66.7

8.0

70.3

57.2

100.0

100.0

75.4

13.0

20.3

0.7

53.6

60.1

94.9

35.5

0.7

33.3

22.5

30.4

100.0

95.7 78.7

73.9 55.1

17.4 8.3

91.3 61.4

73.9 53.1

100.0 98.4

100.0 97.6

84.8 65.4

10.9 9.8

4.3 13.8

0.0 1.2

63.0 42.1

73.9 48.4

97.8 90.9

34.8 28.7

0.0 0.4

17.4 25.2

6.5 17.3

15.2 20.5

100.0 97.2

*Forgery (any)=checks credit cards and prescriptions; stolen good=selling, trading, and buying to

resell; property destruction includes arson but is almost entirely vandalism.

The most important items in the discussion of table 8 relate to violence

robberies and assaults. In this regard, those more proximal to the crack

distribution market were more involved in violent crime. Moreover, those

in the dealer and dealer+ groups committed more violent crimes on a per

capita basis than those in the “none” and “minor” groups. Specifically, the

104
mean number of robberies committed by the four groups were as follows:

none (6.8), minor (5.6), dealer (13.9), and dealer+ (18.2).

DISCUSSION

These data address a number of points about the relationships between

crack, crime, and violence in Miami and perhaps elsewhere. In particular,

recent media reports appear to be correct in their assessment of the involvement of youth in crack distribution and violent crime as significant trends in

some locales. These reports, however, may be overreporting some aspects

of the crack-violence connection while underreporting others, yet, at the

same time, profoundly underestimating the significance of the whole

crack-crime connection.

First, whereas media reports suggest that homicide is a concomitant of crack

distribution among inner-city youths, this may not be the case in Miami and

Dade County. Moreover, much of the current focus on crack-related violence may be more the result of a media event than an emergent trend.

Consider, for example, the trends indicated in figure 1. The data represent

homicide rates per 100,000 population in six selected cities for the years

1985 through 1988 and figures for Miami and Washington, DC, through

June 30, 1989. Rates were computed for the cities themselves rather than

Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), since the former offer better reflections of inner-city crime. That is, city crime rates tend to reflect the more

acute crime picture, as opposed to MSA data that are diluted by lower

crime rates in many suburban areas. The year 1985 was used as the starting point, as it represents the year prior to popularization of crack in inner

cities.

According to the Drug Enforcement Administration (1989), all six of these

cities have high rates of crack availability and distribution. In addition,

they are urban areas that are known for their high rates of crime and violence. Interestingly, they reflect alternative trends in homicide. For

example:

In New York and Atlanta, the homicide rate reflected steady upward

movement from 1985 through 1988, with a 46.7-percent increase in

Atlanta and a 34.4-percent increase in New York over the 4-year period.

In Detroit and Los Angeles, the homicide rate was actually lower in

1988 than in 1985.

In Miami, where the homicide rate increased some 25 percent from

1985 through 1988, by mid-1989 a decline was apparent.

105
FIGURE 1. Homicide rates per 100,000 population

SOURCE: Based on data from Uniform Crime Reports 1985-1988; Miami Herald July 3, 1988, pp. 1B,

3B; Washington Post August 30, 1989, pp. A1, A20.

l In Washington, DC, where the homicide rate increased by some

154 percent from 1985 through 1988, during the first half of 1989 the

rate increased by yet another, and rather extraordinary, 40 percent.

Because there are many demographic and ecological differences among the

cities targeted here, it is difficult to generalize about or explain their

106
varying homicide rates. What is clear from the data is that higher rates of

homicide do not necessarily go hand-in-hand with higher rates of crack use

and distribution. In fact, what is happening in Washington, DC, appears to

be unique.

Second, adolescent involvement in crack distribution does not necessarily

mean youth gang involvement in crack distribution. Whereas the exploits

of the “Crips,” “Bloods,” and other violent street gangs have become legend

in Los Angeles and other parts of the United States, such is not the case

everywhere there is an active inner-city crack market, particularly in Miami.

At the outset, it would appear that Miami’s juvenile street gangs have yet to

establish themselves in the underworlds of drug use and crime. In 1985,

the Dade County Grand Jury (1985) noted that there were some 2,800

youths involved in 36 known gangs in Miami and Dade County, but that:

Dade County gangs appear to have advanced to a point,

but no further. We have learned that there is an additional

evolutionary step which brings the gang from fighting and

relatively disorganized criminality to the level of organized

criminal activity with adult participation . . . (Dade County

Grand July 1985, p. 2)

Three years later, the Dade County Grand Jury (1988) reexamined the gang

problem. Although they found that the number of gang members had expanded 95 percent to some 3,500, they could present no evidence that

juvenile gangs had become meshed in drug distribution. In this regard,

of the 611 hard-core adolescent offenders interviewed in this study, only

1.8 percent (n=11) were gang members at the time of interview, and

only 2.5 percent (n=15) were former members. As to why not, a 17-yearold black male commented in 1989:

The gangs in this town are just not where it’s at. They’re

kid stuff. Most of ‘em are just “tag crews,” markin’ up

the buildings with graffiti, bein’ macho about when and

where the next fight’ll be, and struttin’ for the ladies . . .

Crimewise some are doin’ shotgun robberies, but most of

it is snatchin’ purses and gold chains from the old Jews in

South Beach or from neighborhood geeks . . . If you want

to make some money ya don’t have time for that—.

Third, although Miami received international attention during the early

1980s because of the number of drug-related homicides, much has changed

in the years hence. The worst year for murders in Miami was 1981, with a

total of 621. As indicated in table 9, the homicide rate has dropped by

almost a third since then. The violence earlier in the decade was related

primarily to Miami’s cocaine wars (Gugliotta and Leen 1989; Eddy et al.

107
1988). For years, the balance of power in the cocaine-trafficking hierarchy

had been on a relatively even keel. Colombians bought coca paste in

Bolivia and Peru, processed it into powder cocaine in their own country,

and shipped it north to Miami, where Cuban middlemen distributed it

locally, or transhipped it elsewhere. Beginning in the late 1970s, however,

the Colombians decided to cut out the middlemen and take over cocaine

distribution in South Florida. The struggle reached its peak in Miami

during 1981, with the Colombians winning the takeover.

TABLE 9. Miami and combined Miami and Dade County homicide rates

per 100,000 population

Year City of Miami

Miami and

Dade County MSA

1981 58.8 34.5

1982 51.9 29.7

1983 38.4 22.2

1984 42.4 23.7

1985 33.9 21.8

1986 37.3 21.6

1987 33.2 20.1

1988 42.5 24.6

1989 40.5 23.8

SOURCE: Federal Bureau of Investigation 1988; Miami Herald 1989.

Currently, Miami and Dade County police officials estimate that perhaps

one-third of the county’s homicides are drug related, with the balance of

either “other felony” or domestic origin. If so, it would appear that

Miami’s crack distribution networks may be “kinder and gentler” than

elsewhere.

Fourth, although crack distribution by hard-core adolescent offenders in

Miami may not reflect the gang-related violence that has been suggested in

Los Angeles, it is nevertheless highly aiminogenic. As the data in this

paper have demonstrated, young crack dealers commonly violate not merely

drug laws, but also those protecting persons and property. Moreover, the

more anyone is involved in the crack business, the more crimes that person

commits. As indicated in table 10, for example, those in the dealer+ group

averaged 63.9 percent major felonies per offender compared to 42.4 percent

for crack dealers, 8.2 percent for those involved in minor sales, and 8.9

percent for those not involved in the crack distribution network

108
TABLE 10. Crimes and arrests during the 12-month period prior to interview by crack business involvement among 234 Miami and

Dade County hard-core adolescent offenders

Crack Business Involvement Total

None Minor Dealer Dealer+ Sample

(n=50) (n=20) (n=138) (n=46) (n=254)

Number Done

Major Felonies 444

Property Offenses 5,479

Drug Business 9,785

Vice Offenses 3,115

Total Offenses 18,823

Mean Number Per Subject

Major Felonies 8.9

Property Offenses 109.6

Drug Business 195.7

Vice Offenses 62.3

Total Offenses 375.9

Percent Arrested For:

Major Felonies 6.0

Property Offenses 30.0

Drug Business 46.0

Vice Offenses 4.0

Any Offense 64.0

164 5,857 2,938 9,403

3,937 32,360 10,203 51,979

6,630 70,365 49,766 136,546

2,020 18,006 2,370 25,511

12,751 126,588 65,277 223,439

8.2 42.4 63.9 37.0

196.9 234.5 221.8 204.6

331.5 509.9 1,081.9 537.6

101.0 130.5 51.5 l00.4

637.6 917.3 1,419.1 879.6

10.0 17.4 26.1 16.1

25.0 46.4 32.6 39.0

90.0 76.1 58.7 68.1

5.0 6.5 2.2 5.1

100.0 94.9 84.8 87.4

In the final analysis, it would appear from tables 6, 7, 8, and 10 collectively that a somewhat more deviant group of youths is drawn into crack distribution, and, further, that participation in the crack trade facilitates crack

addiction.

FOOTNOTES

1. “Index” offenses, in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, include criminal

homicide, forcible rape, aggravated assault, robbery, burglary, larceny/

theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.

109
The perpetrator of these executions, sampled for the study in 1987, was

interviewed by the author 2 years hence, in early 1989. A black male

and high school drop-out, the perpetrator was 17 years of age at the

time of the homicides. In his neighborhood, he had the reputation of

being an aggressive youth who had been arrested on several occasions

for serious assaults. Local crack-using informants never doubted his

assertions about the 1987 killings. In fact, they claimed that from 1986

through early 1989 he was responsible for at least four killings in the

Miami and Dade County drug community.

Only 15 percent of the sample were females (n=38). They were distributed in the crack business categories as follows: “None” (n=13), Minor

(n=l), “Dealer” (n=22), and “Dealer+” (n=2).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by U.S. Public Health Service grants 1 R01

DA 01827, “Drug Use and Serious Delinquency,” and 5 R01 DA 04862,

“Crack Abuse Patterns and Crime Linkages,” from the National Institute on

Drug Abuse.

REFERENCES

Dade County Grand Jury. Dade Youth Gangs. Final Report of the Grand

Jury, May 14, 1985.

Dade County Grand Jury. Dade County Gangs-1988. Final Report of the

Grand Jury, May 11, 1988.

Drug Enforcement Administration. Crack/Cocaine Overview 1989.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, 1989.

Eddy, P.; Sabogal, H.; and Walden, S. The Cocaine Wars. New York:

W.W. Norton, 1988.

Elliott, D.S.; Huizinga, D.; and Ageton, S.S. Explaining Delinquency and

Drug Use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1985.

Federal Bureau of Investigations. Uniform Crime Reports 1981-1987.

Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1988.

Goldstein, P.J. The drugs/violence nexus: A tripartite conceptual

framework. J Drug Issues 15:493-506, 1985.

Gugliotta, G., and Leen, J. Kings of Cocaine. New York: Simon and

Schuster, 1989.

Inciardi, J.A. The War on Drugs: Heroin, Cocaine, Crime, and Public

Policy. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield, 1986.

Inciardi, J.A. Beyond cocaine: Basuco, crack, and other coca products.

Contemp Drug ProbI 14:461-492, 1987.

Inciardi, J.A., and Pottieger, A.E. Drug use and crime among two cohorts

of women narcotics users. J Drug Issues 16:91-106, 1986.

110
McBride, D.C., and McCoy, C.B. Crime and drug using behavior: An

areal analysis. Criminology 19:281-302, 1981.

McCoy, C.B.; McBride, D.C.; Russe, B.R.; Page, J.B.; and Clayton, R.R.

Youth opiate use. In: Beschner, G.M., and Friedman, AS., eds. Youth

Opiate Use: Problems, issues, and Treatment. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1979. pp. 353-375.

Miami Herald July 3, 1988. pp. lB, 3B.

Thornberry, T.P.; Moore, M.; and Christenson, R.L. The effect of dropping

out of high school on subsequent delinquent behavior. Criminology 23:3-

18, 1985.

Washington Post. August 30, 1989. pp. A1, A20.

AUTHOR

James A. Inciardi, Ph.D.

Professor and Director

Division of Criminal Justice

University of Delaware

Newark, DE 19716

111
The Relationship Between Cocaine

Use, Drug Sales, and Other

Delinquency Among a Cohort of

High-Risk Youths Over Time

Richard Dembo, Linda Williams, Werner Wothke,

James Schmeidler, Alan Getreu, Estrellita Berry,

Eric D. Wish, and Candice Christensen

INTRODUCTION

The relationship between drug use and delinquency or crime continues to be

a critical research and policy issue. Research has consistently found: (1) a

strong relationship to exist between drug use and crime in different samples

of adults entering the criminal justice system (Chaiken and Chaiken 1982;

Wish 1987; Wish and Johnson 1986; Wish and Gropper 1989) and (2) that

criminal behavior increases following addiction and arrests for drug offenses

and property offenses decline with decreasing drug use (Ball et al. 1981;

Johnson et al. 1985; Anglin and Speckart 1988).

On the basis of early findings from urine testing indicating a drugs-crime

connection among adult arresters (Wish et al. 1980; Toborg 1984), the

National Institute of Justice (NIJ) initiated a Drug Use Forecasting Program

(DUF) (National Institute of Justice 1988). The DUF program seeks to

obtain periodic systemic urine test data on samples of arrestees in various

U.S. cities for epidemiological and planning purposes.

Until recently, relatively few studies have used urinalysis to examine systematically the link between drug use and crime among youths entering the

juvenile justice system. These youths, whose problem behavior in the community has brought them into contact with the legal system, often are

experiencing multiple problems (Dembo et al. 1987a; Dembo et al. 1988).

Findings from urine testing of juvenile detainees in different cities have

identified high rates of recent drug use (Dembo et al. 1987b; Boyer and

McCauley 1988; Pennell 1988). Although the DUF program has found

112
regional differences in recent drug use among juvenile arrestees, urine test

results consistently identify traces of cannabinoids and, secondarily, cocaine,

in the specimens of youths.

Particularly disturbing are indications that the rate of cocaine use is increasing among youths tested in Tampa (Dembo et al., in press[c]) and in

Washington, DC (Boyer and McCauley 1988). This trend in increased

cocaine use parallels that found among adult arrestees in Manhattan

(Wish 1987).

In addition, urine teat studies of juvenile arrestees indicate that youths who

are involved with cannabinoids and cocaine have more serious delinquency

histories than youths who have not recently used these drugs (Dembo et al.

1987b, Dembo et al., in press[a]). These findings parallel those obtained in

the studies of adult arrestees referred to earlier. Further, a study of the

short-term recidivism of the youths involved in our longitudinal project

(Dembo et al., in press[d]) found that youths determined to be urine positive for recent cocaine use at initial interview were significantly more likely

to have one or more referrals to juvenile court or arrests as an adult for

property misdemeanor offenses during the subsequent 18 months than youths

not found to have recently used this drug (51 percent vs. 33 percent,

respectively).

THE IMPORTANCE OF DRUG SALES IN UNDERSTANDING THE

DRUGS-CRIME CONNECTION

Recent studies have documented the important role played by drug sales in

the criminal behavior patterns of youths and adults. Chaiken and Chaiken

(1982) found this among the prison and jail inmates they studied. In addition, Chaiken and Johnson (1988) identified adolescents who sell drugs, particularly those who are heavily involved in drug use themselves and engage

in other crimes, to be a very high-risk group for future criminality.

Drug use and delinquent behavior among inner-city youths, particularly

black males, can often be traced to factors (stressors) that result in these

youths having little stake in conventional society (Dembo 1988; Gibbs 1984;

Brunswick 1988). These stressors include poverty; educational difficulties,

including poor performance in school and lack of communication with educational authorities; high rates of unemployment; large percentages of babies

born out of wedlock; high infant mortality rates; and a high rate of suicide

among black teenagers (Gibbs 1984). Involvement with drugs, particularly

hard drugs among urban youths, is less a consumption or recreational behavior than an occupational and career track for these youths (Preble and

Casey 1969). Inciardi and Pottieger’s (in press) study of serious delinquent

youths in Miami found high rates of drug use among them, with almost all

of the youths having some involvement in the crack business. For these

113
youths, the crack trade has a strong attractiveness as a lifestyle and career

track.

An important, remaining research topic concerns the relationship between

youths cocaine use, involvement in drug sales, and participation in other

delinquent behavior over time. Longitudinal inquiries are methodologically

superior to cross-sectional studies in their ability to address a “broader range

of causal and developmental questions” (Blumstein et al. 1988, p. 28). The

time sequence of events can be determined more precisely; and, because

each person acts as his or her own control, longitudinal data are better able

to control for the influence of extraneous variables.

This chapter reports some results of an ongoing longitudinal study of a

cohort of youths who entered a detention center in Tampa, FL, between

December 1986 and April 1987. A structural model of the relationships

between the youths’ cocaine use (measured by self-report and urine test

data), involvement in drug sales, and other delinquent behavior over time is

examined.

The data set examined is particularly important because many of the youths

were in a transition state as far as their use of cocaine was concerned. The

rate of cocaine-positive urine tests more than doubled during the followup

period. Hence, these data provide a good opportunity to examine the

dynamics linking their cocaine use, participation in drug sales, and other

delinquent behavior. The chapter ends with a discussion of the theoretical

and policy implications of the results.

THE STRUCTURAL MODEL

Figure 1 illustrates the three parallel structural models we examined for

three categories of delinquent behavior: index offenses, general theft

crimes, and crimes against persons. Consistent with the literature we have

interviewed, the model represents the youths’ cocaine use and drug sales as

distinct, but interrelated, experiences at each time period covered by the

study and over time. In particular, cocaine use, drug sales, and other

delinquent behavior are each specified to relate to themselves over time.

In addition, crossover effects linking cocaine use at T1 to drug sales and

other delinquent behavior at T2, and effects connecting drug sales at T1 to

cocaine use and other delinquency at T2 are hypothesized. This set of

expected relationships reflects the literature that indicates a drugs-crime connection among high-risk youths who are involved in cocaine use.

METHOD

The data were collected in the second phase of an ongoing longitudinal

study, which was funded jointly by NIJ and the Office of Juvenile Justice

114
FIGURE 1. Model of the relationship between cocaine use, drug sales,

and other delinquent behavior over time

aRefers to self-reported participation in index offenses, general theft crimes, or crimes against persons.

and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). The general purpose of the study is

to test methods for identifying youths at high risk for future drug use,

delinquency, or criminal behavior. The interview data were gathered at two

points in time.

Initial Interviews

As discussed in more detail elsewhere (Dembo et al., in press[b]), initial

interviews were completed with 399 unduplicated (that is, each was interviewed only once regardless of times admitted), Florida-resident detainees

admitted to a regional detention center in Tampa. All agreed to participate

and were not transferred to the center from another secure facility. All

female detainees and a random half-sample of the males were invited to

take part in the study. We achieved an extremely high level of cooperation

in the interviews: the interview success rate was 98 percent.

Most of the youngsters entering the detention center were admitted for a

new arrest charge (62 percent). In almost all cases, the interviews, which

115
were voluntary and protected from subpoena or use in any civil or court

proceedings, took place within 48 hours of admission. Each detainee was

paid $10 for the 1 1/4-hour interview. In addition, each interviewed youth

provided a voluntary urine specimen for analysis.

Followup Interviews

As reviewed in more detail elsewhere (Dembo et al., in press[c]), an interview strategy was developed that gave each youth a 4-month window in

which to be reinterviewed. We completed 305 interviews (236 males and

69 females) for a total completion rate of 76.4 percent.

However, we did not have the resources to track and reinterview youths

who had moved out of State. In addition, we did not seek to reinterview

youths who had pickup orders (or warrants for their arrest) on them. This

was based primarily on our concern for the safety of the interviewers and

secondarily on the difficulties caused by reinterviewing these youths without

reporting their whereabouts to the police (because of our pledge of confidentiality). Hence, our net reinterview success rate, which excludes youths

not eligible for reinterview, was 88.9 percent.

The youths were reinterviewed in a variety of locations: in the community

(55 percent), in a detention center following arrest or admission by court

order (14 percent), in a county jail (8 percent), while resident in a detention

center or juvenile commitment program (12 percent), in a Department of

Corrections facility (10 percent), and in other locations (a psychiatric facility, general hospital, or children’s home) (2 percent). Each youth was paid

$25 for the 1 1/4-hour interview.

As noted above, 210 of the 305 youths (69 percent) were reinterviewed in

the community or in a detention center following arrest or admission by

court order. Voluntary urine specimens were collected from 201 (96 percent) of these youths. Since a major purpose of the analyses was to assess

the usefulness of urinalysis in predicting the youths’ delinquency and drug

use over time, these 201 youths were the focus of study.

Comparison of the 201 Youths With the Other Youths in the Study

A discriminant analysis was performed comparing the 201 reinterviewees for

whom we had initial interview and followup interview urine test data with

the other 198 youths in the study to learn if there were any important differences between the two groups. Analysis found the two groups were

similar in regard to their sociodemographic characteristics, referral histories,

alcohol and other self-reported drug use, mental health factors, and enzyme

multiplied immunoassay technique (EMIT) urine test results probing for the

presence of cannabinoids and cocaine at initial interview. However, when

compared to the 94 youths who were incarcerated at followup interview, we

116
found incarcerated youths had significantly more prior arrests for property

felonies, property misdemeanors, public disorder misdemeanors, and drug

felonies. Since drug users tend to engage in property crimes, it is possible

the incarcerated youths, from whom we did not obtain followup interview

urine specimens, are more serious drug users. Hence, our findings may

underestimate the true level of drug use among detainees over time and its

relationship to criminality.

Demographic Characteristics

Most of the 201 youths were male (74 percent) and Anglo (54 percent);

38 percent of the detainees were black. They averaged 16 years of age

(range 10 to 18 years). The youths came from families of low to moderate

socioeconomic status.

Referral History Information

At first interview, many of the youths had already had extensive previous

contact with the juvenile court. Of the youths, 64 percent had been referred to juvenile court at least once for felony property offenses, and

22 percent were referred four or more times for these offenses. Half of the

youths were referred one or more times for felony violence offenses. A

quarter of the 201 youths were referred at least once for neglect (28 percent) or physical abuse (24 percent) (Dembo et al., in press[a]).

Cocaine and Other Illicit Drug Use

Self-Reported Drug Use Prior to Initial Interview. A number of questions on drug use were adopted from the National Institute on Drug Abuse

(NIDA) national survey on drug abuse (National Institute on Drug Abuse

1985) to determine the youths’ nonmedical use of nine categories of illicit

drugs: (1) marijuana or hashish, (2) inhalants, (3) hallucinogens, (4) cocaine, (5) heroin, (6) barbiturates and other sedatives, (7) tranquilizers,

(8) stimulants, and (9) analgesics. The youths reported their frequency of

use of each drug with regard to 1 of 7 use categories: never used, used 1

or 2 times, used 3 to 5 times, used 6 to 10 times, used 11 to 49 times,

used 50 to 99 times, used 100 to 199 times, or used 200 or more times.

As discussed in more detail elsewhere (Dembo et al., in press[d]), the

youths reported relatively high lifetime frequencies of marijuana or hashish

and cocaine use during their initial interviews. In particular, 24 percent of

the youths claimed to have used marijuana or hashish 100 or more times in

their lives; 18 percent noted they used cocaine 11 or more times in their

lifetimes.

117
Self-Reported Drug Use During the Followup Period. During their followup interviews, the youths were asked about their frequency of drug use

during the followup period in regard to the same frequency of use categories employed during their initial interviews. As discussed in detail elsewhere (Dembo et al., in press[b]), the youths continued to report relatively

high frequencies of the use of marijuana or hashish and cocaine. In particular, 18 percent of the youths reported they had used marijuana or hashish,

and 9 percent claimed they used cocaine 100 or mote times since their initial interviews. Little use of the other categories of drugs was reported.

Self-reported frequency of use of cocaine (as well as the other categories of

illicit drugs) during the followup period was not corrected for time at risk.

This could have been done by dividing the times of use by the proportion

of time at risk. However, the responses to these variables were categorical.

This refinement would not increase the score assigned to a response already

in the top category or change “no use” into use on one or more occasions.

Previous analysis found that fewer than a quarter of the youths had time at

risk small enough to increase the categories of their scores if they were in

intermediate categories.

Urine Testing For Recent Cannabinoid or Cocaine Use. The youths’

urine test results were used as a key measure of drug use. We used a

threshold level of 20 nanograms per milliliter of urine to identify a youth as

positive on recent cannabinoid use (Schwartz et al. 1987). The threshold

for a positive for PCP was 75 nanograms per milliliter of urine; the threshold for a positive for the other drug categories was 300 nanograms per

milliliter of urine.

We performed split-urine testing of systemic samples of the specimens provided by the youths at the times of their initial and followup interviews

involving two separate laboratories. Near perfect consistency rates were

obtained (table 1).

At their initial interviews, 39 percent of the 201 youths were positive on at

least one drug. Among the drugs tested for, cannabinoids was the most frequently identified substance followed, at a much lower level, by cocaine.

Although we tested for the presence of alcohol, very few positives were

found.

At the time of their followup interviews, 50 percent of the 201 youths were

positive on one or more drugs. The cocaine-positive rate at followup interview (19 percent) was more than double the rate at initial interview (9 percent). The cannabinoid-positive rate was about the same as in year 1.

The urinalysis data should be regarded as a conservative estimate of drug

use among the youths. For example, snorted, powdered cocaine is sensitive

118
TABLE 1. Urinalysis results for 201 youths at initial and followup

interviews

Results

No Drug Positives

One Drug Positive

Cannabinoids

Cocaine

Opiates

Initial Interview Followup Interview

Number Percentage Number Percentage

123 61.2 101 50.2

69 34.3 84 41.8

60 29.8 58 28.9

9 4.5 25 12.4

1 0.5

Two Drugs Positive 8 4.0 16 8.0

Cocaine and Cannabinoids 8 4.0 14 7.0

Opiates and Cannabinoids 2 1.0

Three Drugs Positive

Cannabinoids, Cocaine,

and Opiates

1 0.5

1 0.5

Total 201 100.0 201 100.0

to urine testing for up to 48 hours. However, a number of youths admitted

smoking “crack” cocaine, which metabolizes more quickly than powdered

cocaine.

The same coding scheme was used to score the initial interview and followup interview urinalysis results. Youths who were found to be negative on

cocaine were scored 0, whereas urine positive youths were scored 1.

Self-Reported Delinquent Behavior

Drawing upon the work of Elliott and his associates (Elliott and Huizinga

1984), we probed the youths’ delinquent behavior in the year prior to their

initial interview and inquired about their delinquent behavior during the

followup period. On each occasion, the youngsters were asked how many

times they engaged in 23 delinquent behaviors.

Based on the youths’ claimed frequency of participation in the various delinquent acts, the following three summated indices were constructed of the

youngsters delinquent involvement.

1. General Theft: stole a motor vehicle, stole something worth more than

$50, bought stolen goods, stole something worth less than $5, stole

119
something worth between $5 and $50, broke into a building or vehicle,

went joyriding.

Crimes Against Persons: committed aggravated assault, participated in

gang fights, hit a teacher, hit a parent, hit a student, committed sexual

assault, strong-armed students, strong-armed teachers, strong-armed

others.

Index Offenses: Committed aggravated assault, committed sexual

assault, participated in gang fights, stole a motor vehicle, stole something worth mote than $50, broke into a building or vehicle, strongarmed students, strong-armed teachers, strong-armed others.

In addition, we constructed a drug sales index:

4. Drug Sales: sold marijuana or hashish, sold cocaine or crack, sold

other hard drugs such as heroin or LSD.

High preinitial interview prevalence rates were found for index offenses

(69 percent), crimes against persons (76 percent), general theft offenses

(77 percent), and drug sales (27 percent). In addition, between 3 and

24 percent of the youths reported engaging in the offenses represented by

the various scales 100 times or more-some reported many hundreds of

offenses.

At their followup interviews, the youths reported relatively high prevalence

rates (although lower than at initial interview) of engaging in the offenses

summarized by the four scales: index offenses, 45 percent; crimes against

persons, 54 percent; general theft, 51 percent; and drug sales, 29 percent.

Further, between 3 and 20 percent of the 201 youths claimed to have engaged in the offenses represented by the various scales 100 or more times

since their initial interview-with some youths reporting many hundreds of

delinquent acts.

In regard to drug sales, claimed involvement in selling marijuana, hashish,

and cocaine accounted for the vast majority of the drug sales. About

25 percent of the females and 20 percent of the males reported selling

marijuana, hashish, and cocaine at least once during the year preceding their

initial interviews and during the followup period. Less than 5 percent of

the females and males indicated they sold other drugs such as heroin or

LSD during any of these periods.

The observed range of responses on the self-reported delinquency scales

was large at eitber interview, ranging from no activity at all to hundreds

(and, in a few cases, thousands) of delinquent acts. Hence, as discussed

in detail elsewhere (Dembo et al., in press[e]), we log transformed the

numbers of offenses for each scale to the base 10. We interpreted the

120
differences between 1 and 10, 10 and 100, and 100 and 1,000 offenses as

being comparable. “No activity” responses were assigned a score of -1.

The self-reported delinquency followup data were adjusted for time at risk.

According to the algorithm that was developed, the higher the score, the

more frequent the delinquent behavior reflected in each index.

RESULTS

Analytic Strategy

The data analysis uses some of the newly available multivariate statistical

methodology for ordinal, censored, and generally nonnormal data, which

have been refined and strengthened in the PRELIS and LISREL-7 programs

by Joreskog and Sorborn (1988; Joreskog and Sorbom 1989). The present

analysis was based on matrices of polychoric and polyserial correlations and

their asymptotic sampling variances and covariances. Estimation of the

linear structural models was by weighted least squares (WLS), as implemented in LISREL-7. Use of the WLS method is advantageous with ordinal data because it produces robust chi-square fit statistics and correct standard errors for parameter estimates, even though the normality assumptions

are often violated.

The LISREL7 model consists of two parts. The measurement model refers

to the relationship of the latent variables to the observed variables. The

structural equation model contains the structural relationships among the

latent variables; it includes the causal effects and the amount of unexplained

variance among these variables. Our analysis proceeded in two stages.

First, we examined the relationship of the observed variables to the theoretical or latent variables through the use of confirmatory factor analysis.

Next, we estimated the relationships among the theoretical variables.

The chi-square test was used to test the fit of the measurement and structural models to the polychoric and asymptotic covariance matrices for the

observed variables. A nonsignificant chi-square test provided evidence of

an acceptable fit of the measurement model or structural model to the data.

Because reliable asymptotic variances and covariances of estimated variances

cannot be produced in small samples, we were not able to use LISREL-7 to

examine the relationships among the cocaine use and delinquency variables

for the 53 females involved in the analyses. However, the data available

for the female youths permitted insight into the level of cocaine use and

delinquency differences between the males and females. The study of the

polychoric correlation matrices of these variables for the females enabled us

to draw some important conclusions regarding their interrelationships.

These findings are discussed after the results for the males have been

reviewed.

121
Measurement Model

The measurement model was examined in two steps. First, the relationships

between the two indicators (self-report and urine test results) within each of

the latent factors (cocaine use at two times) was examined, and the relationships of the indicators across the two latent factors were studied. The correlations between self-reported cocaine use and urinalysis test results for

recent cocaine use were positive and of moderate magnitude for the male

youths’ initial (.478) and followup (.506) interviews. In addition, these

variables were correlated positively across the two data gathering points

(correlations ranged from .251 to .506, correlation level=.408). These

relationships are smaller in magnitude than those found in our analyses of

the youths’ marijuana- and hashish-use data (Dembo et al., in press[e]).

The lower cocaine-use correlations appear to be a consequence of two factors: (1) relatively few youths (n=12) were found to be urine positive on

cocaine at the time of their initial interviews, and (2) the youths were more

reluctant to report the use of cocaine than marijuana or hashish (Dembo

et al., in press[a]).

Second, we tested the fit of the measurement model to the data. This analysis tested the hypothesis that there are two correlated latent factors in the

data. Even though the measurement model is small, it can be tested against

the unrestricted correlation matrix with 1 degree of freedom. Since this test

remains nonsignificant [x2(1)=0.24, p=.63, root mean square residual=.026],

the two-factor model was included in the structural analysis.

Structural Equation Model

We examined the fit of the model shown in figure 1 to three cocaine-use

and self-reported delinquency covariance matrices, In each of these analyses, the same cocaine-use variables and self-reported drug sales scale were

used; however, on each occasion, a different self-reported delinquency scale

was studied.

Cocaine Use and Drug Sales. We first estimated the model shown in figure 1, but without any other delinquency, using the two measures of cocaine use and drug sales across the two data collection periods. As figure

2a shows, the fit of the structural model to the data was acceptable

(5)=2.23, p=.82]. The model adequately explains the matrix data, and,

consequently, the residuals are small (root mean square residual 0.056).

The loadings for the measurement model are moderate in magnitude and

statistically significant.

The paths for the structural model, shown in figure 2a, indicate that significant relationships exist between (1) cocaine use as measured at initial interview and self-reported frequency of engaging in drug sales during the preceding year, and (2) cocaine use as measured at followup interview and

122
FIGURE 2. The relationship between cocaine use and engaging in drug

sales over time, involving two=indicator and one-indicator

measures of cocaine use, among male youths

*p<.05 (one tailed test).

**p<.05 (two-tailed test)

claimed drug sales during the followup period. In addition, a

time 1 (T1) to time 2 (T2) relationship exists for drug sales.

significant

In a further analysis, we examined the influence of race (black vs. nonblack

(predominantly white)) on the measures shown in figure 2a. This model

allowed for the possibility that race is a common additional predictor of all

the measures. The results of this analysis produced a significant chi square

(7)=16.19, p=.02], indicating a poor fit of the model to the data. Inspection of the polychoric correlation matrix of these variables indicated that

white males reported more frequent use of cocaine at the time of their initial interviews (-.385, n=148, p<.001) and during the followup period

123
(-239, n=148, p<.01), whereas black males had a higher urine test cocaine

positive rate at initial interview (.249, n=148, p<.01) and followup interview

(.329, n=148, p<.001).

Further analyses illuminated this issue. Of the white males, 69 percent

found to be urine positive for cocaine at followup interview, compared to

39 percent of the black males, reported they had used cocaine one or more

times during the followup period.

In view of these results and the greater validity associated with the urine

test findings compared to self-reported cocaine use the model was refitted to

the data using the urine test results as the only indicator of cocaine use at

the initial and followup interviews. The results of our estimation of this

just-identified model are shown in figure 2b. As can be seen, statistically

significant, positive relationships exist between (1) self-reported involvement

in drug sales in the year prior to initial interview and during the followup

period and (2) claimed participation in drug sales at T1 and being urine

positive for cocaine at followup interview. These results point to an important dynamic underlying the males’ increasing involvement in cocaine use

over time, which will be discussed later.

In a subsequent analysis of these data, we examined the influence of race

on the measures shown in figure 2b. The results indicated there were no

mean level differences for black vs. white youths on all measured variables. In view of these results, subsequent analyses employed only the

urine test results.

Cocaine Use, Drug Sales, and Other Delinquent Behavior. Parallel analyses of the data were performed, which separately included general theft

crimes, index offenses, and crimes against persons during the followup period in the model. The results, shown in figure 3, highlight a number of

important relationships. Self-reported involvement in general theft offenses,

crimes against persons, and drug sales in the year preceding initial interview

(T1) relates significantly and positively to engaging in each respective delinquent behavior during the followup period (T2). At each time period,

claimed participation in general theft offenses and index crimes is significantly and positively associated with engaging in drug sales; in addition,

engaging in crimes against persons is significantly and positively associated

with involvement in drug sales in the year preceding the youths’ first

interview.

Three important crossover effects are highlighted in figures 3a and 3b.

Involvement in crimes against persons in the year prior to initial interview

was significantly and positively related to engaging in drug sales during the

followup period (figure 3b). Of particular note, participation in drug sales

during the 12 months preceding initial interview is significantly and positively related to cocaine use (as measured by the urine test results) at

followup interview (figures 3a and 3b).

124
FIGURE 3. The relationships among cocaine use, engaging in drug sales,

and other delinquent behavior over time among male

youths

*p<.05 (one-tailed test).

*p<.05 (two-tailed test).

The absence of significant relationships (with one exception) at each data

collection point between cocaine use, drug sales, and other delinquent

behavior; between cocaine use over time; and between cocaine use as measured at initial interview and drug sales and other delinquent behavior during

125
the followup period seems contrary to theoretical expectations. These findings will be elaborated on.

Racial Group Differences

In further analyses of the data, we examined the influence of race (black

vs. nonblack (predominantly white)) on the measures shown in figures 3a,

3b, and 3c. The results indicated there were no mean level differences

for black vs. white youths on all measured variables.

Comparison of the polychoric correlation matrices of the cocaine use, drug

sales, and other delinquency variables for the black and white males showed

that, for both groups, moderately high and positive relationships existed

between self-reported drug sales and claimed involvement in general theft

crimes, crimes against persons, and index offenses in the year prior to initial interview and between drug sales and other delinquent activities during

the followup period. Further, black and white males had correlations of

similar form and not substantially different magnitude between the urine test

results for cocaine at initial interview, reported drug sales in the year prior

to first interview and during the followup period between the urine test

results for cocaine at followup interview and reported drug sales during the

followup period. Although their magnitude differed, for both black males

and white males the correlations between the urine test results for cocaine

at the initial and followup interviews and claimed involvement in general

theft crimes, crimes against persons, and index offenses in the year prior to

initial interview and during the followup period were near zero or negative-with one exception. Among white youths, positive relationships were

found between the urine test results for cocaine at the initial and followup

interviews and self-reported involvement in index offenses in the year

preceding first interview; among black youths, these relationships were

negative.

One important correlation difference between the black and white male

youths is worthy of special note. The polyserial correlation between selfreported drug sales in the year preceding initial interview and the urine test

results for cocaine at followup interview was substantially higher for the

white males (.447) than for the black males (.025).

Gender Group Differences

Chi-square and t-test comparisons of male-female involvement in cocaine

use (involving separate study of the self-report and urine test results) and

delinquent behavior found few significant differences between the two

groups. Male youths reported a greater participation in general theft

offenses (t=-3.21, df=102.77, p<.01) and in index offenses (t=-2.50,

df=104.80, p<.05) during the year preceding their initial interviews than

did females. On the other hand, females reported a significantly greater

126
frequency of cocaine use during the followup period (t=2.16, df=68.91,

p<.05). The females’ use of cocaine, particularly during the followup

period, was significantly related to their involvement in prostitution (selfreported cOcaine use, 600, n=53, p<.001); urine positive for cocaine, .534,

n=53, p<.001).

More insight into the relationship between cocaine use and involvement in

delinquency for the females is provided by examination of the polychoric

correlation matrices of these variables. Although the pattern of correlations

among the variables studied was similar to the results for the male youths,

in general, higher, positive correlations were found for the females. (Tables

reporting these polychoric correlations are available from the senior author

upon request.)

In addition, no patterned ethnic group differences exist between the selfreported cocaine use and urine test results at the initial and followup interviews. White females reported greater frequency of cocaine use during

their lifetimes preceding their initial interviews and during the followup

period and had a higher urine-positive rate at followup interview than black

females had.

The Influence of Socioeconomic Status

The socioeconomic status of the youths’ households had low or near zero

magnitudes of association with the marijuana-use and delinquency variables.

In addition, 15 percent of the cases had missing or uncodable information

on this variable, making this variable a poor candidate for the analyses such

as those involving the variable of race.

DISCUSSION

On the whole, the hypothesized model of the relationships between cocaine

use, as measured by urine test results, drug sales, and other delinquent behavior over time was consistent with the data. A significant, positive relationship was found between engaging in drug sales in the year prior to first

interview and during the followup period. Involvement in drug sales in the

year prior to initial interview and during the followup period was significantly and positively related to engaging in general theft and index offenses

during each time period. In addition, crimes against persons were significantly and directly related to engaging in drug sales during the 12 months

preceding initial interview and during the followup period, and person

crimes at T1 were indirectly associated with cocaine use at followup interview through reported drug sales at T1 and during the followup period.

This web of relationships highlights the systemic violence (Goldstein 1985)

affecting the lives of many of the male youths in our study.

127
Goldstein (1985) argues that drugs and violence are related to one another

in three possible ways: (1) psychopharmacologic, in which people may

engage in irrational or violent actions as a result of the short-term or longterm effects of using specific drugs, e.g., alcohol or PCP; (2) economic

compulsive, in which some drug users pursue economically oriented violent

crime, such as robbery, to acquire income to support their costly drug

habits; and (3) systemic, referring to the traditionally violent patterns of

interaction involved in the system of drug distribution and use, e.g., battles

over territory between rival drug dealers, elimination of informers. Systemic violence has been found to be a significant factor in a large proportion

of homicides in New York City, New York State (Goldstein 1987), and

Washington, DC (Office of Criminal Justice Plans and Analysis 1988).

Participating in drug sales in the year prior to initial interview was significantly and positively associated with being urine positive for cocaine at the

time of followup interview (figures 3a and 3b). This finding suggests that

involvement in drug distribution is an activity at high risk of resulting in a

deepening, personal involvement in cocaine use over time. This process

appears to be more powerful among the male youths in our study than

among the females. The cocaine-positive urine test rates for the females in

our study were similar at the initial and followup interviews (11 percent and

15 percent, respectively). On the other hand, the male youth cocaine

positive rate more than doubled between the first and second interviews

(8 percent vs. 21 percent, respectively).

On the surface, it may seem surprising that being urine positive for cocaine

at T1 is not significantly related to engaging in drug sales during the l-year

preinitial interview period and to being cocaine positive at the followup

interview—even though there are positive associations between these two

pairs of variables. Close examination of the data provides a cogent picture

accounting for this situation. First, the rate of cocaine positives was quite

low at T1, with only 12 of the male youths having traces of this drug in

their urine specimens. In contrast, 31 male youths were found to be cocaine positive at followup interview. Second, a number of youths who

claimed they were involved in drug sales at the time of their initial interviews reported they would not use cocaine. They attributed this reluctance

to use cocaine to two key factors: (1) cocaine users were unreliable drug

dealers, who could not be trusted, and (2) a lack of desire to try the drug

because of adverse consequences associated with being addicted to it. Most

of the youths who were involved in drug sales regarded this activity as an

occupation. Any experiences they regarded as likely to reduce their ability

to survive in the tough street life were seen as extremely undesirable.

Nonetheless, our data suggest that, as the youths became more enmeshed in

drug sales, they became personally involved in the use of the cocaine. Our

results indicate that this is a major dynamic for the white males in our

study. Ease of access to the drug and the pressures of the street-drug life

128
probably play key roles in this process. In addition, further analysis

showed that the use of crack cocaine became more popular between the

youths’ initial and followup interviews.

It is important to recognize that both the black and white youths in the

study were involved in selling drugs, although there was a somewhat different emphasis in the drugs sold by the two groups of youths. About 25 percent of the white male youths admitted to selling marijuana or hashish

during the year prior to their initial interviews or during the followup period, compared to 10 percent of the black youths. In contrast, black youths

were more likely to sell cocaine during the year preceding their initial interview (22 percent) and during the followup period (29 percent) than the

white youths during each of these time periods (8 percent and 10 percent,

respectively).

Race was not found to affect the pattern of magnitude of the relationships

depicted in figures 3a, 3b, and 3c. Further, the relationships among the

variables in the model were similar across the two groups--with one important exception. Involvement in drug sales in the year preceding initial interview was more strongly related to being urine positive for cocaine at followup interview for the white males than the black males in our study.

This finding points to an important topic for further research: the similarities and differences in cocaine-crime relationships over time for white and

black youths and other minorities.

In this vein, it is important to stress the self-report bias in cocaine use we

uncovered in our analyses. The white, male youths in the study reported

more frequent use of cocaine than the black youths. Researchers pursuing

studies similar to ours among comparable samples of youths should address

this problem in their study designs (Hirschi et al. 1981).

Important gender group similarities and differences were found between the

magnitude and patterns of relationships among cocaine use, engaging in

drug sales, and other delinquent behavior over time. These findings were

reviewed in detail earlier. More studies, involving youths of different ethnic

and socioeconomic groups in different regions are needed to assess the genera&ability of our findings and the structural model we tested. Research is

particularly needed among high-risk youths, such as juveniles entering detention centers.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The persistence of relationships between drug sales and cocaine use over

time among the youths we studied is disturbing and raises important policy

issues. First, the data we have collected on these 201 youths indicate that

many needed serious treatment intervention-especially to address their substance use difficulties. However, very few of them received such help for

129
any length of time during the followup period. Only 14 percent of the

youths reported receiving any treatment for an alcohol or other drug misuse

problem during the followup period. Among the 18 percent of the youths

who were referred for evaluation for alcohol or other drug misuse treatment,

only 22 percent reported receiving any treatment of this sort during the

followup period.

During their followup interviews, many youths reported poignant experiences

regarding their seeking help for a drug problem. Some youths claimed they

were attending treatment on an outpatient basis and were abruptly terminated when their money ran out. Some youths claimed they and their families lacked the resources to pay for their treatment. Some youths entered

programs and were terminated due to rule violations, returning to the streets

to resume heavy drug use and delinquent activities. In addition, there were

very few treatment program slots for adolescents in the community-particularly programs in the public sector.

Drug use among adult offenders is very high (Wish 1987; Wish and

Johnson 1986; Wish and Gropper 1989); and, unfortunately, under the present circumstances, many of the youths in our project have already moved

into the Florida Department of Correction (DOC) system. In the 24-month

period following their initial interviews, 28.5 percent of the youths in our

project had Florida DOC numbers’, and many of these youths spent some

time confined in a DOC institution. We need to expend a serious effort to

break this cycle of events by investing in quality intervention programs for

troubled youths.

Second, the youths we studied became involved in drug sales for a variety

of reasons. Social policy needs to be informed by these differences in

experiences if effective intervention is to be made with this problem. Similar to the pattern Inciardi and Pottieger (in press) uncovered among the seriously delinquent Miami youth they studied, many youths in our project

found the drug business attractive as a lifestyle in the classic Preble and

Casey (1969) sense. That is, the drug subculture provided a feeling of

excitement revolving around the experiences of hustling, “ripping and running,” and the “cops and robbers” nature of the street life. Drug sales, particularly crack sales, are very seductive. There is a great demand for crack

cocaine, the profits are considerable, and the drug business provides for

upward mobility in a career line. For these youths, there are no other

viable options for “making it” in their milieu. (It is important to note that

there may be regional differences in the profit involved in selling crack

cocaine. For example, in New York City, the goal of riches from the crack

trade is more myth than reality (New York Times, November 26, 1989: 1,

42; Bourgois, in press).

Another group of youths in our study regarded the drug business as a risky

but profitable way to survive (by which they usually mean a way of life

130
that provides an income permitting them to me-et their material and status

needs) in their environment. Having limited educational skills, few employment skills, yet needing to satisfy their personal and family’s needs for

food, shelter, and material comforts, these youths are vulnerable to becoming involved in drug sales. Many youths realize that, if they are arrested

on a felony drug charge on more than one occasion, they may spend time

in a commitment program or, as is increasingly the case, be directly filed to

adult court for prosecution. Further, many of these youths regard drug sales

as a tough job, requiring vigilance against competitors and the youths who

may sell drugs for them. Yet, in balance, these risks are perceived to be

acceptable in the face of the paucity of alternate, socially and personally

salutary options in their lives. Developing a point Brunswick (1988) first

made in the context of her discussion of drug use among young black

males, we must make meaningful, economically rewarding job training and

counseling available to these youths. We cannot direct their energies away

from the drug life by the promise of not being arrested or working in a fast

food restaurant for $4 per hour. The risk of arrest for drug sales is relatively low on the streets, and many youths can make $500 a day selling

drugs. Gainful employment opportunities must be provided. Otherwise, as

Brunswick (1988) so effectively described the situation:

. . . they must continue to listen to the beat of a different

drummer and to look for alternative activities and experiences to attempt to satisfy what they share with all young

people-needs for growth and self-actualization, for affiliation, for respect from others, for social belonging, and

basic to all of these, for a source of material sustenance.

(Brunswick 1988, p. 184)

The drug problem among the youths we studied is a product of the decades

of social neglect these youths and their families have experienced. In many

ways, the success of the war on drugs rests in increasing the stake of these

youths (and their counterparts in other settings) in conventional society. We

need to make available to these youths socially and personally rewarding

educational and occupational options, which will enable them to enter and

remain in mainstream society. The earlier we intervene in the lives of

these youths, the more successful these efforts at change are likely to be.

FOOTNOTES

1. Based on official record followup of project youths.

REFERENCES

Anglin, M.D., and Speckart, G. Narcotics use and crime: A multisample,

multimethod analysis. Criminology 26:197-233, 1988.

131
Ball, J.D.; Flueck, J.A.; and Nurco, D.N. The criminality of heroin addicts

when addicted and when off opiates. In: Inciardi, J.A., ed. The DrugsCrime Connection. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981.

Blumstein, A.; Cohen, J.; and Farrington, D.P. Criminal career research:

Its value for criminology. Criminology 16:1-35, 1988.

Bourgois, P. In search of Horatio Alger: Culture and ideology in the

crack economy. Contemp Drug Probl, in press.

Boyer, K.R., and McCauley, M. 1987 Juvenile Drug Use Trends and Findings. Washington, DC: D.C. Pretrial Service Agency, 1988.

Brunswick, A.F. Young black males and substance use. In: Gibbs, J.T.,

ed. Young, Black and Male in America: An Endangered Species.

Dover, MA: Auburn House, 1988.

Chaiken, J.M., and Chaiken, M.R. Varieties of Criminal Behavior. Santa

Monica, CA: Rand, 1982.

Chaiken, M.R., and Johnson, B.D. Characteristics of Different Types of

Drug-lnvolved Offenders. U.S. Department of Justice, 1988.

Dembo, R. Delinquency among black male youths. In: Gibbs, J.T., ed.

Young, Black, and Male in America: An Endangered Species. Dover,

MA: Auburn House, 1988.

Dembo, R.; Dertke, M.; Borders, S.; Washburn, M.; and Schmeidler, J.

The relationship between physical and sexual abuse and tobacco, alcohol

and illicit drug use among youths in a juvenile detention center. Int J

Addict 23:351-378, 1988.

Dembo, R.; La Voie, L.; Schmeidler, J.; and Washburn, M. The nature and

correlates of psychological/emotional functioning among a sample of detained youths. Crim Justice Behav 14:311-334, 1987a.

Dembo, R.; Washburn, M.; Wish, E.D.; Schmeidler, J.; Getreu, A.; Berry,

E.; Williams, L.; and Blount, W.R. Further examination of the association between heavy marijuana use and crime among youths entering a

juvenile detention center. J Psychoactive Drugs 19:361-373, 1987b.

Dembo, R.; Williams, L; Berry, E.; Getreu, A.; Washburn, M.; Wish, E.D.;

and Schmeidler, J. Examination of the relationships among drug use,

emotional/psychological problems, and crime among youths entering a

juvenile detention center. Int J Addict, in press[a].

Dembo, R.; Williams, L; Berry, E.; Getreu, A.; Washburn, M.; Wish, E.D.;

Schmeidler, J.; and Dertke, M. The relationship between physical and

sexual abuse and illicit drug use: A replication among a new sample of

youths entering a juvenile detention center. Int J Addict 23:1101-1123,

1988.

Dembo, R.; Williams, L.; La Voie, L.; Getreu, A.; Berry, E.; Genung, L.;

Schmeidler, J.; Wish, E.D.; and Kern, J. A longitudinal study of the

relationships among alcohol use, marijuana/hashish use, cocaine use and

emotional/psychological functioning problems in a cohort of high risk

youths. Int J Addict in press[b].

132
Dembo, R.; Williams, L; Schmeidler, J.; Getreu, A.; Berry, E.; Genung, L.;

Wish, E.D.; and La Voie, L. A longitudinal study of the relationships

among marijuana/hashish use, cocaine use and delinquency in a cohort of

high risk youths. J Drug Issues, in press[c].

Dembo, R.; Williams, L; Schmeidler, J.; Getreu, A.; Berry, E.; Genung, L.;

Wish, E.D.; and La Voie, L. Recidivism among high risk youths: Study

of a cohort of juvenile detainees. Int J Addict, in press[d].

Dembo, R.; Williams, L; Wothke, W.; Schmeidler, J.; Getreu, A.; Berry,

E.; Wish, E.D.; and Christensen, C. Examining a structural model of the

relationship between marijuana/hashish use and delinquency among a cohort of high risk youths over time. In: Taylor, R.L., ed. Black Youth in

America: Assessment of their Social and Economic Status (tentative title).

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, in press[e].

Elliott, D.S. Personal communication on the SCL-90-R, 1986.

Elliott, D.S., and Huizinga, D. The Relationship Between Delinquent Behavior and ADM Problems. Boulder, CO: Behavioral Research Institute.

Gibbs, J.T. Black adolescents and youth: An endangered species. Am J

Orthopsychiatry 54:621, 1984.

Goldstein, P.J. The drugs/violence nexus: A tripartite conceptual framework. J Drug Issues 15:493-506, 1985.

Goldstein, P.J. Impact of drug-related violence. Public Health Rep

102:625-627, 1987.

Hirschi, T.; Hindelang, M.J.; and Weis, J.G. Measuring Delinquency.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981.

lnciardi, J.A., and Pottieger, A.E. Kids, crack, and crime. J Drug Issues,

in press.

Johnson, B.D.; Goldstein, P.J.; Preble, E.; Schmeidler, J.; Lipton, D.S.;

Spunt, B.; and Miller, T. Taking Care of Business: The Economics of

Crime by Heroin Users. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1985.

Joreskog, K.G., and Sorbom, D. PRELIS: A Preprocessor for LISREL.

Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software, Inc., 1988.

Joreskog, K.G., and Sorbom, D. LISREL 7 User’s Reference Guide

Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software, Inc., 1989.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. National Institute on Drug Abuse 1985

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse Questionaire. Rockville, MD:

the Institute, 1985.

National Institute of Justice. National Institute of Justice Drug Use Forecasting (DUF). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, the Institute, 1988.

New York Times. Despite its promise of riches, the crack trade seldom

pays, November 26, 1989. pp. 1, 42.

Office of Criminal Justice Plans and Analysis. Homicide in the District of

Columbia. Washington, DC: Office of Criminal Justice Plans and Analysis, 1988.

Pennell, S. Drugs Among San Diego Juveniles. San Diego, CA: San

Diego Association of Government, 1988.

133
Preble, E., and Casey, J.J. Taking Care of Business: The Heroin User’s

Life on the Street. Int J Addict 4:1-24, 1969.

Schwartz., R.H.; Willette, R.G.; Hayden, G.F.; Bogema, S.; Thome, M.M.;

and Hicks, J. Urine cannabinoids in monitoring abstinence in a drug

abuse treatment program. Arch Pathol Lab Med 111:708-711, 1987.

Toborg, M. Preliminary findings on the D.C. urine testing experiment.

Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology,

Cincinnati, OH, November 1934.

Wish, E.D. Drug Use Forecasting: New York 1984-1986. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1987.

Wish, E.D., and Gropper, B.A. Drug Testing by the Criminal Justice System: Methods, Research and Applications. Washington, DC: National

Institute of Justice, 1989.

Wish, E.D., and Johnson, B.D. The impact of substance abuse on criminal

careers. In: Blumstein, A.; Cohen, J.; Roth, J.A.; and Visher, C.A., eds.

Criminal Careers and Career Criminals. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 1986.

Wish, E.D.; Klumpp, K.A.; Moorer, A.H.; and Brady, E. An Analysis of

Drugs and Crime Among Arrestees in the District of Columbia. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, 1980.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Mr. Mark Washburn, Ms. Janis Kern, and Mr. John Mayo helped with the

interviews. Mr. Eduardo Marti helped in coding data during the project’s

first year. Ms. Kern helped code data during the project’s first and second

years. Dr. Delbert Elliot advised on his self-report behavior items and

scales. The research reported in this chapter was supported by grant #86-

IJ-CX-0050 from the National Institute of Justice and grant #87-JN-CX0008 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Results and views expressed in the chapter do not necessarily imply any

policy or research endorsement by funding agencies.

AUTHORS

Richard Dembo, Ph.D.

Professor

Department of Criminology

University of South Florida

and

Department of Epidemiology and Policy Analysis

Florida Mental Health Institute

University of South Florida

Tampa, FL 33620

134
Linda Williams, B.A.

Department of Criminology

University of South Florida

Tampa, FL 33620

Werner Wothke, Ph.D.

Scientific Software, Inc.

Chicago, IL 60637

James Schmeidler, Ph.D.

Departments of Psychiatry and

Biomathematical Sciences

Mount Sinai School of Medicine

100th Street and Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10029

Alan Getreu, M.A.

Northside Centers, Inc.

13301 North 30th Street

Tampa, FL 33612

Estrellita Berry, M.A.

Northside Centers, Inc.

13301 North 30th Street

Tampa, FL 33612

Eric D. Wish, Ph.D.

National Institute of Justice

633 Indiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Candice Christensen, B.S.

Department of Criminology

University of South Florida

Tampa, FL 33620

135
The Drug Use-Violent Delinquency

Link Among Adolescent MexicanAmericans

W. David Watts and Loyd S. Wright

INTRODUCTION

Violence and drug use continue to concern social scientists, policy decisionmakers, and the public. The level of violence apparently associated with

drug use and sales implies an enduring link. Although Goldstein (1985) has

identified three types of violence associated with drug use (psychopharmacological, economic compulsive, and systemic), little is known about the relationship between drug use and violence among juveniles, particularly

Mexican-American youth.

Much of the work on drug use and violence (Inciardi, this volume; Dembo

et al., this volume) is based on studies of arrested or inner-city youth. Although much self-report research examines drug use and delinquency by

youth in school (Johnston et al. 1986), few studies report on violence and

delinquency for both high school and adjudicated youth. Similarly, little is

known about the drug use-violence connection for Mexican-American youth

and its underlying factors.

The purpose of this chapter is to explore the relation between drug use and

violence against both persons and property among a sample of MexicanAmerican adolescents in Texas. It is posited here that there is a relationship for adolescents between violence, against both persons and property,

and drug use, particularly illegal drugs. Other factors predicted to be associated with self-reported violence, illicit drug use, and friends’ drug use in

this population include gender, incarceration, value orientation (beliefs and

attitudes), social class, perceived parental rejection, parental supervision,

physical abuse by a parent, and the use of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana.

Figure 1 displays the projected domain relationships between drug use and

violence assumed in this chapter.

136
FIGURE 1. Adolescent problem behaviors

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Violence and Drugs

Recent research suggests that there are common factors that underlie both

drug use and delinquency (Carpenter et al. 1988, Elliott et al. 1985; Kandel

et al. 1986; Newcomb and Bentler 1988), but that the underlying conditions

associated with these behaviors vary from one ethnic group to another

(Watters et al. 1985). From their findings, Watters and his associates concluded that additional research was needed into the drug use-violent delinquency relationship among members of different racial or ethnic groups.

Although it is recognized that juvenile problem behaviors are often drawn

from a common domain (Jessor and Jessor 1977; Osgood et al. 1988), it

does not necessarily follow that drug use and violence are duplicative phenomena. Other studies on drug use and violence have shown that there is

137
not an inherent, necessary, and direct relationship between the two behaviors

(Carpenter et al. 1988). Although many studies of alcohol and violence

have shown a link (whether biochemical or cultural is not at issue here),

studies of other drugs, such as marijuana, have not shown a direct link with

violence (Simonds and Kashavi (1980), however, found a very strong link).

A stronger case can be made for the violence-crime connection with barbiturates, cocaine, heroin, and PCP use.

Friends’ Drug Use

Kandel (1973; Kandel 1980) has consistently found the largest proportion of

variance in drug use to be explained by the reported number of respondents’ friends who use drugs. The annual national surveys by Johnston and

his colleagues (Johnston et al. 1986), the Monitoring the Future Series

(1982), and the Youth in Transition Studies (Bachman et al. 1978) have all

provided support for Kandel’s key finding. Other studies have examined

the relative effects of parents, peers, and other environmental factors on

drug use (Dembo et al. 1985; Johnson 1984). The overwhelming conclusion is that peer use is an important predictor of drug use. Perez et al.

(1980) likewise found the number of peers using drugs to be one of the

best predictors of drug use among a sample of Mexican-American

youngsters.

Gender

Practically all researchers have found significant differences between males

and females with respect to both illicit drug use and delinquency (Caetano

1987; Gilbert and Cervantes 1987; Guinn 1975; Holck et al. 1984; Newcomb et al. 1987). Perez et al. (1980) also found that gender (being male)

was among the best predictors of both alcohol and drug use in the sample

of Mexican-American youngsters they studied.

Family Dysfunction

Since the family is the primary agent of socialization in our society, it is

not surprising that many investigators have focused on the family in their

search for explanations of deviant behavior. McCord and McCord (1964)

concluded from an extensive review of the literature that extreme parental

rejection and Jack of affection were the primary causes of antisocial behavior. Wilson and Herrnstein (1985), in their recent review of the literature,

point out that parental rejection, neglect, and physical abuse have all been

found to be related to aggressive behavior and delinquency.

John Bowlby (1973), author of the three-volume Attachment and Loss, notes

that children who are exposed to almost constant rejection, neglect, or abuse

often develop an “anger or despair” and feel enraged at the parent who has

inflicted such intense pain or sense of loss. Such children usually feel a

138
need for attention from their parents on the one hand and anger toward

them on the other. This combination often leads to outbursts of anger,

which the parent may find difficult to ignore. Because aggression is difficult to ignore, it is often reinforced. Family attachments form a foundation

from which youth experience commitment and involvement in social life.

In the study reported in this chapter, the three family-dysfunction variables

investigated were parental rejection, parental supervision, and physical abuse

by a parent. Adopted from Hitachi’s (1969) conceptualization and application of control theory, these three variables reflect the degree of attachment

to the family, the extent of parental supervision, and family emotional

bonds. Youngsters who feel rejected or abused by their parents may decide

to seek revenge for the pain they have experienced at the hands of their

parents. Obviously, illegal drug use or any delinquent behaviors that embarrass the parents or cost them money would accomplish this goal. Parental neglect or lack of supervision, on the other hand, might lead the youngster to engage in deviant behaviors to force the parents to take notice.

Drug use also may distract youth from the conflict they experience with

their families by their involvement with peers and by the buffering or psychopharmacologic effects of drugs themselves.

Value Orientation and Socioeconomic Class

Several theories of delinquency view values as important links in the causal

chain leading from conforming to criminal behavior (Cohen 1955). While

these theories differ somewhat, they all tend to ascribe similar values to

lower class gang delinquents. According to Cohen, “the hall-mark of the

delinquent subculture is the explicit and wholesale repudiation of middle

class standards and the adoption of their very antithesis” (Cohen 1955,

p. 129). Cohen’s value theory of delinquency has been operationalized to

distinguish between delinquents and nondelinquents by Landis and associates

(1963; Landis and Scarpitti 1965a; Landis and Scarpitti 1965b). Although

their findings were promising, little research has been conducted with their

Value Orientation Scale (VOS).

Acculturation

Of particular importance in the study of social class among Mexican-Americans is the concept of acculturation (Caetano 1987; Gilbert and Alcocer

1988). Acculturation refers to the process that immigrants undergo as they

become integrated into the larger society. Acculturation is a complicated

process, measured directly by a number of scales and indirectly by language

and socioeconomic status. Olmedo et al. (1978) include both years of education and white or blue collar employment as factors in acculturation.

Several researchers who have studied acculturation among Mexican-Americans have found higher acculturation to be positively related to drug or

alcohol use among both sexes (Caetano 1987; Perez et al. 1980). With

139
respect to social class, Holck et al. (1984) found, among a household

sample of over 2,000 Mexican-American women, that higher levels of education and being employed were significantly related to alcohol consumption. It is expected that Mexican-American youth with higher acculturation

scores as measured by parents’ education and family income may be more

likely to report drug abuse and serious delinquency.

Other Drug Use

Evidence suggests that the use of one psychoactive substance by youngsters

often leads to later experimentation with other drugs. Research on adolescent drug use has consistently shown a predictable sequence of initiation:

individuals who begin with tobacco or alcohol often progress later to marijuana and may eventually go on to use other drugs such as depressants,

cocaine, or opiates. For this reason, tobacco (nicotine) and alcohol are frequently viewed as “gateway” drugs and marijuana as a “stepping stone,”

which greatly increases the likelihood that the use will progress to the problematic use of other illicit drugs (Botvin et al. 1984).

MODEL

The following research examines correlates of self-reported drug use and

violence among a sample of Mexican-American youth, of whom 10.3 percent have been adjudicated delinquent. Friends’ drug use, gender, family

dysfunction, values, and other drug use are predicted to be correlated with

both drug abuse and violence. While it is not possible to determine the

temporal relationship between drug use and violent delinquency, the bivariate and multivariate relationships that exist between drug use, violent delinquency, and other variables are examined. Since family factors, such as

rejection, lack of supervision, abuse, gender, and, to some extent, value formation, precede peer orientation, friends’ drug use will also be examined as

a dependent variable. The theoretical perspective tested here is that family

dysfunction leads to value orientation and peer group formation conducive

to drug use. Heavy illicit drug use, lack of parental control, physical abuse,

and friends’ drug use contribute to violent delinquency.

It is proposed that family dysfunction, as expressed in parental rejection,

lack of supervision, and physical abuse, leads to value orientation that

rejects conventional society. Children who experience intense family dysfunction often feel isolated and may find their fundamental sense of trust in

others violated. Although “in” the family, these youth are not “of” the

family, nor are they participating members of it. Family dysfunction may

be particularly acute in families that are moving away from the traditional

culture and the extended family, moving from rural to urban areas. For

Mexican-American families, it is expected that upwardly mobile, more educated, and dual-income families are more likely to have children with problems resulting. in drug abuse and violence.

140
Like other youth, Mexican-American adolescents are peer oriented. Drugusing and delinquent peer orientations are both facilitated and supported by

value orientations that on the one hand are nonconformist and on the other

are consistent with peer values. Value formation is thought to be independent of socioeconomic status particularly for Mexican-American youth

experiencing acculturation.

Youth in nonconforming peer groups that share deviant values mutually enhance their solidarity and cohesiveness, thereby reinforcing deviance and

progressive drug use. The greater the proportion of friends who use drugs,

the greater the likelihood that respondents report drug use themselves. Drug

use provides a behavioral bond for the group and involvement in deviance

shared with others. The harder the drugs used, the greater the potential involvement with drug-related violence of all types. While an inherent relationship between drugs and violence is not suggested, delinquent violence is

likely to increase with drug use. Given that tobacco and alcohol use are

“gateways” to wider drug consumption, and marijuana is a “stepping stone”

to more serious drug abuse, as illegal drug use increases, so will violence.

METHOD

Sample

The community from which the high school sample is drawn is located in

an urban corridor undergoing rapid growth and development. The community of 35,000 has experienced 20-percent population growth over the last 10

years with both Mexican-Americans and whites moving to the area. The

Mexican-American community is characterized by wide variation in length

of residence, degree of acculturation, and socioeconomic status as well as

neighborhood location. Many families in the area are recent residents of

the community without multigenerational roots. The school district consists

of 58.8 percent Mexican-Americans, 36.8 percent whites, and 4.2 percent

blacks. The full sample consists of 764 high school (HS) students and 165

Texas Youth Commission (TYC) youngsters. Among the HS students, there

were 400 Mexican-Americans (173 males and 227 females).

To ensure an adequate representation of violent and adjudicated delinquents

in the sample, the population of youth confined to a maximum security

reformatory, operated by the TYC for repeat and violent offenders, was

included. The demographic makeup of the adjudicated subsample was

33.5 percent white, 28.0 percent Mexican-American, 23.2 percent black, and

15.2 percent other. Among the TYC students, there were 46 MexicanAmericans (30 males and 16 females). The TYC and HS Mexican-American respondents were combined into one sample for the purpose of this

study. One limitation of the sample is that the HS respondents were from a

growing small city, while most of the TYC respondents were from urban

141
environments. A second limitation of the sample is that adjudicated delinquents are overrepresented.

Instrument

A closed-ended questionnaire was used to obtain data from the HS and

TYC youth during the spring of 1986. The questionnaire and machine

readable answer sheets were distributed by university personnel during regularly scheduled classroom periods. The general purpose of the questionnaire

was explained in writing and orally in a standardized introduction to each

class. AU students were assured that their answers would remain anonymous and confidential. They were also told that participation was voluntary

and that they could leave any item blank if they chose to do so. Only two

high school students did not participate. With some minor differences, the

same questionnaire used at the HS was administered during class time at

the TYC facility. Due to concerns about literacy, all the questions and the

possible answers were read aloud; otherwise, questionnaire administration

was the same at both sites.

The questionnaire contained a 17-item delinquency scale, which ranged from

using a false identification to manslaughter or murder. Reliability of this

17-item delinquency scale was .88, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha. Selfreports of delinquency in the last 12 months or in the 12 months prior to

confinement were sought, rather than lifetime delinquency.

The drug-use questions were modeled after those used by the Monitoring

the Future Project, which yearly assesses drug use among high school

seniors (Johnston et al. 1986). Due to space and time limitations, only four

items on the questionnaire pertained to personal drug use: one each for

tobacco use, alcohol use, marijuana use, and other illegal drug use, which

included cocaine, hallucinogens, stimulants, barbiturates, and inhalants. Like

the delinquency items, each question measured self-reported drug use in the

last 12 months.

The family functioning variables, supervision, rejection, and physical violence in parent-adolescent relationships, were measured by four questions.

Parental supervision was measured by two questions: “Do your parents

know who you are with when you are away from home?” “Do your parents

know where you are when you are away from home?” Parental rejection

was determined by a single question: “Do your parents ever make you feel

unwanted?” Physical abuse was measured by the question: “Do your parents ever punish you by slapping or hitting you?” The possible responses

to these family variables were “usually,” “sometimes,” and “never.” They

were coded so that higher scores indicated less supervision, more rejection,

and abuse. These parent-child items were adapted from Hirschi (1969) and

closely match those recently used by Cernkovich and Giordano (1987) in

their study of family relations and delinquency.

142
Friends’ drug use was determined by questions that measured friends’ marijuana use and friends’ use of other illegal drugs including cocaine, LSD,

amphetamines, barbiturates, and inhalants. Possible responses were none,

few, some, many, or all. Items measuring friends’ marijuana and other

drug use were combined to create a single measure, while value orientation

was determined by two separate scales: the VOS (Landis and Scarpitti

1965a) and the Watts Scale. The VOS is composed of 13 items intended

to measure the degree of orientation toward middle class values, such as

concern for others vs. self-interest, antiestablishment vs. proestablishment

attitudes, internal vs. external locus of control, present vs. future orientation,

and toughness, e.g., “Good manners are only for sissies” and “Don’t let

anybody your size get by with anything.” The reliability for the VOS,

measured by Cronbach’s alpha, was .809. The Watts Scale, constructed for

this study, consisted of only five items, which emphasized middle class

values related to how important the participants viewed reading, writing,

employment, hard work, and respect for the property of others. The alpha

for this scale was .616. Higher scores on both the Watts Scale and the

VOS indicated greater agreement with middle class values.

Social class was determined by three items: (1) fathers’ education,

(2) mothers’ education, and (3) family income. Responses to these questions were coded so that higher scores were indicative of higher socioeconomic class. With respect to gender, male was coded as “1” and female as

“0.” With respect to the variable that will be called “incarceration,” public

high school students were coded as “0,” and reform school students were

coded as “1.”

Statistics

A factor analysis of the delinquency items was conducted to confirm a violence scale. Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and factor

scores of the delinquency variables included. Since the delinquency variables are intercorrelated, an oblique rotation (Rim and Mueller 1978) was

used with an eigenvalue of 1.0 for inclusion. Variables with factor loadings

of .30 or greater on two or more factors were excluded from further analysis. Three factors were produced in 15 iterations explaining 52 percent of

the variance. The first factor, as shown in table 1 and labeled violent delinquency, included assault, fighting, rape, vandalism, carrying a weapon

murder or manslaughter, car theft, and breaking and entering. The second

factor consisted of selling or giving away drugs and cutting school; it was

not labeled. The third factor included shoplifting, running away, and armed

robbery; this factor was also unlabeled. Only the first factor, which accounted for 39 percent of the total explained variance, is included in subsequent analysis. The other factors are not used, since they do not cohere in

a meaningful way, and since they are only peripherally related to the key

dependent variable-violent delinquency.

143
TABLE 1. Factor analysis of deliquency measures

Variable Mean

Standard

Deviation

Factor

Loading

Factor 1: Violent Delinquency*

Intentionally Hurt Others

Serious Fight

Group Fight

Sex Against Will

Vandalism

Hidden Gun/Knife

Killed Person

Arson

Car Theft

Break and Enter

Factor 2:

Sold/Gave Drugs

Cut School

Factor 3:

Shoplift

Runaway

Armed Robbery

1.74 1.23 .434

1.49 1.00 .660

1.58 1.11 .591

1.24 .79 .498

1.40 .87 .682

1.70 1.24 .454

1.06 .28 .755

1.14 .48 .658

1.25 .82 .587

1.40 .88 .645

1.61 1.27 .829

2.37 1.56 .606

1.49 .91 -.639

1.26 .69 -.734

1.24 .84 -.795

*Alpha=.818 for Factor 1.

Stepwise multiple regressions were used to determine the relative importance of the variables investigated in relationship to four dependent variables: (1) violent delinquency; (2) illegal drug use other than marijuana

(referred to as other illegal drug use); (3) friends’ drug use; and (4) incarceration. Pearson correlations were used to determine relationships among

violent delinquency, other illegal drug use, alcohol use, tobacco use, marijuana use, friends’ drug use, and incarceration.

RESULTS

Table 2 displays the bivariate correlations between all variables included in

this study. Although correlations among some of the independent variables

are moderate to high, e.g., marijuana and other illegal drug use are correlated at .678, no correlation approaches .80. Anticipating multicollinearity, all

144
TABLE 2. Pearson correlations for all variables

Variable

Violent Illicit Friends’

Incarcer- Delin- Drug Drug Marijuana Tobacco Alcohol

ation quency Use Use use use Use

Incarceration

Violent Delinquency

Illicit Drug Use

Friends’ Drug Use

Marijuana Use

Tobacco Use

Alcohol use

Lack of Supervision

Physical Abuse

Parental Rejection

Watts Scale

VGS

Gender

Social Class

1.000

.635*

.535*

.465*

.389*

.412*

.185*

.318*

.092†

344*

-.120**

-.256*

.096†

.136**

1.000

.644*

.563*

.485*

.417*

.386*

,371*

.142**

.245*

-.199*

-329*

.167*

.094†

1.000

.634*

.678*

.488*

.498*

289*

.030

.175*

-.084†

-.282*

.104**

.077

1.000

.548*

.450*

.424*

.359*

.013

236*

-.063

-271*

.118**

.037

1.000

.595*

641*

.347*

-0.60

.152**

-.053

.-239*

.188*

.034

1.000

.526*

.264*

-.032

.138**

-.033

-.170*

.297*

.023

1.000

.229*

-.087†

.081†

.067

-.047

.216*

.051

Variable

Lack of

Super- Physical Parental Watts Social

vision Abuse Rejection Scale VOS Gender Class

Incarceration

Violent Delinquency

Illicit Drug Use

Friends’ Drug Use

Marijuana Use

Tobacco Use

Alcohol Use

Lack of Supervision

Physical Abuse

Parental Rejection

Watts Scale

VOS

Gender

Social Class

1.000

.147** 1.000

.163* .195*

-.130** -.037

-.286* -.036

.215* -.055

.015 .047

1.000

.037 1.000

-.068 .301*

-.131** -.093†

-.008 .002

1.000

-.121**

*083

1.060

.040 1.000

dependent variables were regressed against one another to determine if the

relationships between the variables approached unity. The highest r

2

, .79,

was sufficiently high to suggest caution but not close enough to unity, given

the sample size, to require other solutions such as dropping or collapsing

variables (Lewis-Beck 1983; Berry and Feldman 1985).

145
Further examination of the r

2

s of the independent variables regressed against

one another showed that all drug use measures ranging from friends’ drug

use and tobacco to other illegal drug use, marijuana, and alcohol were in

the .65 to .79 range. These variables, while interrelated, are believed to be

conceptually distinct. Keeping the drug variables separate and analyzing the

explained variance, both including and excluding selected drugs from a regression equation, provides greater explanatory potential than reducing all

interrelated explanatory variables to a collapsed category or deleting them

from consideration. Dropping all variables with r

2

s of greater than .50

would eliminate most drug measures, again not a conceptually acceptable

alternative. While other studies (Osgood et al. 1988) have shown that drug

use is an element in general deviance, different types of drug use may have

different relationships with violent delinquency.

Following the model specified above, which predicts that violent delinquency is a function of illegal drug use, friends’ drug use, values, and family

factors, table 3 displays the outcomes of the analysis, Illegal drug use other

than marijuana contributes the greatest amount to the variance, accounting

for 39.3 percent of the total of 51.6 percent. Friends’ drug use and the

Watts Scale also contributed significantly as did lack of supervision, physical abuse, tobacco use, social class, the VOS, and parental rejection. The

most important family variables contributing to the explanation of violent

behavior in the combined sample were lack of supervision and physical

abuse. It is interesting to note that higher socioeconomic Mexican-American youth report more violent behavior, while the Watts Scale and the VOS

show values that are counter to middle class values. This finding suggests

that acculturation is a factor in contributing to both drug use and violent behavior as defined in this study. Mexican-American youth whose families

are better educated and more prosperous have not internalized values that

are consistent with that success.

As discussed earlier, to include a full range of delinquent behavior in the

study, the sample included both high school and incarcerated youth. Of the

446 Mexican-American youth in the sample, 46 (10.3 percent) were incarcerated. The inclusion of such a large portion of incarcerated youth in the

sample, in comparison to what exists in the population, skews the sample

and the findings. To show the effects of incarceration on the sample, incarceration was introduced into the regression equation as a predictor variable.

Incarceration was transformed into a dummy variable, with incarceration

coded as “1” and nonincarceration coded as “0.” Controlling for incarceration (see table 4) reduces the relative effect of illegal drug use on violent

delinquency in relation to all other predictors. Incarceration has the largest

beta weight (.384) with other illegal drug use and friends’ drug use making

substantial contributions. Other illegal drug use becomes the second predictor variable explaining 11.3 percent of the variance. Except for physical

abuse, family factors are no longer significant variables, while alcohol enters

the equation. The finding that incarcerated youthful offenders are more

146
TABLE 3. Stepwise regression on violent delinquency

Independent Variables Beta % Variance

Illegal Drug Use .381† 39.3

Friends’ Drug Use .188† 4.3

Watts Scale -.128† 2.6

Lack of Supervision .090* 1.6

Physical Abuse .096† 1.0

Tobacco .111** 1.0

Social Glass .091** 0.6

VOS -.093* 0.7

Parental Rejection .074* 0.5

Marijuana -.002 -

Alcohol .062 -

Gender .045 -

*p<.05.

*p<.01.

†p<.001.

NOTE: r=.718; r2=516. Other illegal drug use included use of cocaine, acid, speed, downers, or

inhalants. It did not include marijuana or heroin.

violent than nonincarcerated youth is consistent with Hindelang et al.

(1979), which found adjudicated offenders to have more serious offenses

than nonadjudicated, self-report respondents.

As an aside to the violent delinquency-drug use issue is the question of

why these youth are incarcerated. In this sample of Mexican-American

youth, incarceration is principally a function of violent delinquency. Entering the same predictor variables plus violence into a regression equation

with incarceration as the dependent variable, a multiple r of .712 is produced, with violence accounting for 37.9 percent of the variance, while

other illegal drug use contributes 4.3 percent and alcohol 3.2 percent. Tobacco contributes 3.4 percent and rejection by parents 1.8 percent for an explained variance of 50.6 percent.

Given that the most important predictors of violent delinquency, as displayed in table 3, are other illegal drug use and friends’ drug use, separate

regressions were performed on these variables using only the remaining predictor variables. For both other illegal drug use and friends’ drug use as

dependent variables, two sets of analyses were conducted: one including

alcohol and tobacco and one excluding alcohol and tobacco. The reason for

the dual analysis is to control for multicollinearity by eliminating the

147
TABLE 4. Stepwise multiple regression on violent delinquency controlling

for incarceration

Independent Variables Beta % Variance

Incarceration .384† 40.1

Other Illegal Drugs .204† 11.3

Friends’ Drug Use .168† 2.6

Watts Scale -.120** 1.9

Alcohol .155† 1.2

Physical Abuse .114** 1.2

VOS -.091* 0.8

Marijuana -.028 -

Tobacco -.018 -

Parental Rejection .016 -

Lack of Supervision .047 -

Gender .043 -

Social Class .062 -

*p<.05.

**p<.001.

†p<.0001.

NOTE: r=.769; r2=591. Other illegal drug use included use of cocaine, acid, speed, downers, or

inhalants. It did not include marijuana or heroin.

strongly correlated other drug variables, marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco.

Since these correlations are not high enough to dictate elimination, they are

included to illustrate their effect.

For other illegal drug use, an important predictor of violent delinquency,

56.3 percent of the variance can be explained with marijuana use, friends’

drug use, tobacco, and the VOS. As shown in table 5, marijuana accounted

for 45.8 percent of the variance on other illegal drug use, followed by

friends’ drug use, tobacco, and the VOS. When alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana are excluded from the equation, friends’ drug use and the VOS account for almost 41 percent of the variance.

Table 6 displays regression findings on friends’ drug use. In the first analysis, including marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco, 35.4 percent of the variance

is accounted for. Marijuana explains 28.2 percent of the variance, while

lack of parental supervision contributes 2.9 percent. Tobacco use adds

1.8 percent, and parental rejection accounts for 1.7 percent, with VOS

0.8 percent. Respondents who report that most of their friends use drugs

have a constellation of identifying characteristics, which include marijuana

148
TABLE 5. Stepwise multiple regression on other illegal drug use

Independent Variables Beta % Variance

Including Alcohol, Tobacco, and Marijuanaa

Marijuana

Friends’ Drug Use

Tobacco

VOS

Social Class

Watts Scale

Parental Rejection

Lack of Supervision

Physical Abuse

Gender

Alcohol

.420† 45.8

.346† 10.2

.087* 0.6

-.079* 0.5

.070* 0.2

-.014 -

.016 -

-.046 -

.036 -

-.054 -

.067 -

Excluding Alcohol, Tobacco, and Marijuanab

Friends’ Drug Use

vos

Watts Scale

Parental Rejection

Lack of Supervision

Physical Abuse

Gender

Social Class

.598† 39.6

-.122** 1.3

-.010 -

.024 -

.033 -

.011 -

.024 -

.071 -

*p<.05.

**p<.001.

†p<.0001

a

r=.750, r

2

=.563.

b

r=.640, r

2

=.409

and tobacco use, family rejection, lack of supervision, and a value orientation system counter to middle class values.

Because marijuana use underlies both other illegal drug use and friends’

drug use, a final set of analyses examined the relationships of the predictor

variables on marijuana use. As with other illegal drug use and friends’

drug use, marijuana use is examined both including and excluding alcohol

and tobacco. As shown in table 7, alcohol and tobacco account for over

50 percent of the variance in reported marijuana use, followed by friends’

drug use, the VOS, and lack of parental supervision. When alcohol and

149
TABLE 6. Stepwise multiple regression on friends’ drug use

Independent Variables Beta % Variance

Including Alcohol, Tobacco, and Marijuana’

Marijuana

Lack of Supervision

Tobacco

Parental Rejection

VOS

Watts Scale

Physical Abuse

Gender

Social Class

Alcohol

.353†

.136**

.157**

.128**

-.095*

.002

.003

-.049

.027

.091

Excluding Alcohol, Tobacco, and Marijuanab

Lack of Supervision

VOS

Parental Rejection

Watts Scale

Physical Abuse

Gender

Social Class

.276†

-.171**

.159**

.014

-.046

.037

.049

28.2

2.9

1.8

1.7

0.8

-

-

-

-

-

12.0

2.8

2.5

-

-

-

*p<.05.

**p<.001.

†p<.001.

a

r=.595 r

2

.354.

b

r=.416, r

2

=.173.

tobacco are dropped from the equation, the total explained variance is reduced to 32.4 percent, with friends’ drug use accounting for the greatest

variance, followed by jack of parental supervision, and being male. Marijuana use is closely intertwined with other more prevalent drugs, with a

drug-using friendship network, and some lack of parental supervision.

DISCUSSION

The great majority of the variance in violent delinquency was accounted for

by illegal drug use other than marijuana. Friends’ drug use was the next

most important contributor, followed by the Watts Scale. Tobacco use

150
TABLE 7. Stepwise multiple regression on marijuana use

Independent Variables Beta % Variance

Alcohol

Tobacco

Friends’ Drug Use

VOS

Lack of Supervision

Watts Scale

Parental Rejection

Physical Abuse

Gender

Social Class

Friends’ Drug Use

Lack of Supervision

Gender

Watts Scale

VOS

Parental Rejection

Physical Abuse

Social class

Including Alcohol and Tobacco’

.391†

.268†

.205†

-.100**

.080*

-.016

.004

-.025

-.034

.003

Excluding Alcohol and Tobaccob

40.3

10.0

4.8

1.3

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

.469† 28.5

.161** 2.9

.104* 1.0

.004 -

-.075 -

.006 -

-.079 -

.013 -

*p<.05.

*p<.001.

†p<.0001.

a

r=.754, r

2

=.569.

b

r=569, r

2

=324.

made a significant contribution to explaining violent delinquency, but was

important after the Watts Scale, lack of supervision, and social class. Drug

use is a factor in violent delinquency as self-reported by this sample of

Mexican-American youth.

Although the data do not identify whether the motives for violence are

owing to psychopharmacological, economic, or systemic motives for such

violence, the relationship between violent behavior and drug use is real and

contains significant policy implications. However, the unique nature of this

sample suggests caution. When incarceration is entered into the multiple

regression equation, it accounted for the majority of variance in violent

delinquency. This sample, as it includes youth who are incarcerated and

151
those who are not, presents a wide range of responses, and, as expected,

incarcerated youth are more violent. Given the response range of this

sample, the common factors contributing to both violent delinquency and

illegal drug use offer policy implications and suggestions for predictors of

specific deviance, such as violence, from general deviance.

The common factors found to contribute either directly or indirectly to both

violent delinquency and other illegal drug use were friends’ drug use, tobacco use, the VOS, and social class. Friends’ drug use is the variable with

the second greatest effect on violent delinquency and the largest effect on

other illegal drug use, after marijuana use. Youngsters who use illegal

drugs form groups, which may or may not be centered on drugs, but which

may facilitate violent delinquency. Somewhat different from the national

sample reported by Osgood et al. (1988), Mexican-American youth are distinguished by the fact that violent behavior is correlated, not with marijuana

use, but with the culturally available and approved tobacco. However,

marijuana use is the predictor of other illegal drug use, which is related to

violent delinquency. Lack of parental supervision and parental rejection,

while not associated with other illegal drug use, are connected with friends’

drug use, while lack of parental supervision is also correlated with violent

delinquency. Family factors are indirectly linked to drug use and directly

linked to violent delinquency. However, marijuana use is the single best

predictor of other illegal drug use, while alcohol and tobacco are predictors

of marijuana use.

Apart from possible psychobiological effects of tobacco use on young

people’s orientation to violent delinquency, tobacco products are the most

readily available form of psychopharmacologically active drugs in our

society. Youngsters who use tobacco act out tobacco-associated identities

available in the media and popular culture. They express a range of

symbols about themselves that suggest being independent, adult, adventuresome, and tough. These values are also associated with drug use and violent delinquency. Smoking is also a marginally deviant, socially visible act

for teenagers. By smoking, young people announce to the public and significant peers that they, too, are a part of a unique club of outsiders. In a

sense, smoking becomes a clan badge or club insignia that can be recognized by others, be reinforced with others, and be a shared focus of attention and action.

The findings reinforce the view that tobacco use is a gateway drug both to

the group of friends who use illegal drugs and to illegal drugs themselves.

Marijuana plays a pivotal role in a transition from tobacco and alcohol use

to other illegal drugs. Parental rejection and lack of parental supervision,

along with marijuana and tobacco use, are important predictors of MexicanAmerican youth’s becoming involved with friends who use drugs. MexicanAmerican children of more acculturated parents (as measured by socioeconomic status) were more likely to be involved in violent delinquency. The

152
pattern of parental neglect or rejection and lack of supervision culminates in

physical abuse for many of the youth who engage in violent delinquency.

Value orientation, as measured by the Watts Scale or the VOS, was related

to violent delinquency, illicit drug use, and friends’ drug use. As elements

of socialization in the family and elsewhere in society, values frame the

general line of action in which people engage. The most violent of the

Mexican-American youth reported in this study did not score highly on

either the VOS or the Watts Scale, both designed to measure values consistent with a conforming and productive lifestyle. These same youth were

not, however, from lower class families. Instead, the most violent youth

were from families with higher incomes and parental education scores, but

their value orientations were consistent with violent delinquency. For Mexican-American youth, acculturation should be considered when assessing the

effect of class position and values on delinquency. The greatest strain and

resulting delinquency may well be with Mexican-American youth from up

wardly mobile families.

These youth, feeling rejected by parents and, perhaps, their conventional

peers, drift into association with one another, forming groups that will

accept their impulsive and antisocial behavior. The key to membership in

such groups is frequent drug use (Oetting and Beauvais 1987), by which

members feel as if they have joined some “fantastic lodge” (Hughes 1963).

The group decides what drugs will be used, when they will be used, and

how they will be obtained. Drugs bind the members of the group together

and provide a special bond. Horowitz (1983) found that Hispanic youth

form gangs as a vehicle to claim honor, and that for the most part, drug

use is not a factor. Carpenter et al. (1988), whose sample is not Hispanic,

found that high drug use is related to violence, including violence to protect

honor.

The young Mexican-Americans in our sample most prone to commit violent

acts tend to come from a more middle class family but reject traditional

middle class values. Feeling rejected by parents and without adequate parental supervision, involved in alcohol and tobacco use with friends, they

join a peer group that supports drug use. Progressing from marijuana to

other illegal drugs, these youth increasingly engage in delinquent behavior

including violent delinquency.

Based on the findings, violent delinquency among Mexican-American youth

develops in the following way. First, the children develop low impulse

control and low tolerance for frustration in the context of the family, in

which parental rejection, lack of supervision, physical abuse, and other

forms of family stress are experienced. Second, the youth adopts values

that are in conflict with those that are consistent with productive behavior in

“middle class” society. Third, young people experiment with tobacco use,

identifying themselves as marginal. In association with peers, they continue

153
to experiment with other gateway and stepping stone drugs, particularly

marijuana. In the peer group, drug use is supported, while other deviant

behaviors including violence are tolerated. Fourth, family controls are either

too little, too late, or none at all. Violent youth tend to be inadequately

constrained by family attitudes and supervision. Fifth, physical abuse and

family violence make a minor but direct contribution to violent delinquency.

Sixth, drug use affects violence pharmacologically, systemically, or economically (Goldstein 1985). By impairing judgment, drug use can contribute

to violence, just as the user involved in trafficking is at risk of violence.

Having both parents with at least high school degrees increases the probability that both parents will be employed. This would increase family

income, but might undermine the traditional Mexican-American family structure and create added stress within the family. Higher social class in this

population, as measured by educational achievement and economic success,

reflects greater acculturation and maybe loss of cultural identity (Olmedo

et al. 1978). As reported by Caetano (1987), more acculturated MexicanAmerican families tend to have a higher rate of alcohol consumption.

Increased alcohol consumption by parents may increase family stress and

friction contributing to eventual parent-child relationship problems. The

extreme stress at home and poor relationships with parents might propel

children towards association with deviant peers, drug use, and delinquency.

Additional research will be needed to determine if this phenomenon occurs

in other Mexican-American populations, and what factors are related to it.

Limitations

There are some limitations concerning the methodology and substance of

this study that need explication. First, the sample in this study was constructed in response to critiques by Hindelang et al. (1979) that self-report

investigations underrepresent serious delinquents and, therefore, do not

adequately reflect the full range of delinquent and criminal behavior. Simply surveying high school students will not capture that range. Inclusion of

an adjudicated delinquent sample in the survey permits a more complete

representation of drug use and delinquent youth with sample construction

weighted toward youth who are more likely to be violent in order to capture a broad range of both behaviors.

Although there are reasons to focus separately on adjudicated and nonadjudicated populations, the variance in violent behavior found within each of

these groups examined separately will be restricted. Further, it is unlikely

that many truly violent individuals will be found on any one day in the

average public high school. Most violent delinquents who have not dropped

out will be expelled, suspended, absent, or in jail or reform school. This is

especially true of Mexican-Americans in Texas, where the dropout rate for

this ethnic group is 45 percent, with the majority dropping out in the ninth

grade.

154
Second, while this study is limited by its cross-sectional design, the anonymity and confidentiality given to respondents assures that no legal or other

negative consequences will follow. No observations or conclusions can be

drawn regarding the temporal sequencing or causality of drug use and violence due to its cross-sectional design. The anonymity given to respondents

makes it impossible to contact them years later. The same anonymity also

assures respondents that the information given may not be traced to them

individually nor will there be any accountability for behavior. The provision of anonymity enhanced the validity of the study’s findings.

Implications

Based on this research and others (Carpenter et al. 1988, Dembo et al.

1985; Horowitz 1983; Newcomb and Bentler 1988), violent delinquency

among Mexican-American youngsters begins with family and proceeds

through peer involvement, value orientation, and the use of licit and illicit

drugs. Perceived parental rejection has been found in this and other studies

(Oetting and Beauvais 1987) to be associated with peer group selection and

involvement with illegal drugs. Parental rejection may have its origins in a

complex series of events that may include low impulse control and low

frustration or tolerance within the child to such an extent that parents

attempt to remove themselves from the child. Mexican-American parents,

traditionally suffering from low socioeconomic status, are struggling in

Texas and throughout the Southwest to increase income and improve social

status. In Mexican-American families, like all others, this requires both

husband and wife to work, which is inconsistent with traditional MexicanAmerican culture. The stresses of the family being different from others in

the community, from the perceived unavailability of the mother, and the

lack of parental care, may contribute to Mexican-American adolescents’

feeling rejected and angry, and needing to seek support from peer groups.

Upwardly mobile parents, perhaps alienated from the traditional family sup

port system that may be available for other Mexican-American youth, may

be too preoccupied with problems of their own to adequately respond to

their child’s need for attention. As problems escalate in the family, parents

may view misbehavior as threats to authority and resort to violence. Thus,

consistent with the literature, this study found a direct relationship between

parental physical abuse and violent delinquency.

The reduction of illegal drug use among Mexican-American youth will almost certainly reduce violent delinquency. To reduce illegal drug use in

this group, it will be necessary to initiate programs to train and support parents of preschool and high-risk school-age children, particularly the children

of upwardly mobile, increasingly acculturated families who are experiencing

substantial stress. Elementary schools will need to examine programs to

assist children in peer group integration, so that Mexican-American youth

will find acceptance in other than drug-using groups.

155
The findings that alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco use contribute to both

illegal drug use and violent delinquency is instructive. Not only does this

society need to concern itself with the effects of illegal drugs and their relationship to violence, but it must focus additional concern on tobacco and

alcohol. These drugs, for some Mexican-American youth, are gateways not

only to illegal drug use but also to violent behavior.

Today’s drug problem has reopened the discussion of legalization of drugs.

Alcohol and tobacco are frequently cited as examples of the positive effects

of legalization, such as producing a legitimate trade, reducing crime, and

yielding revenue. One negative consequence of the legalization of alcohol

and tobacco is the high availability of both drugs for youth. Even where

law prohibits sale of alcohol and tobacco to minors, the simple acceptance

and use of the drugs throughout society makes them attractive to youth with

problems and makes them more available in the home and community.

Imagine the effects on youth if marijuana, cocaine, or heroin were more

easily accessible than they are now. While this Nation currently is experiencing a drug abuse epidemic among young people, the future for American

youth would be catastrophic if even more drugs with destructive effects

were readily available.

CONCLUSION

Although this cross-sectional study has discussed the relation between illegal

drug use and violence among adolescent Mexican-Americans, little is known

of the temporal order of the relation. To confirm or reject our interpretation that drug use and participation in drug-using peer groups contributes

greatly to violent delinquency, a longitudinal study of Mexican-American

children should be undertaken. This study should examine family and child

interaction; the effects of acculturation, especially socioeconomic success;

and the process of introduction to and participation in peer groups. What

are the effects of acculturation on both drug use and violent delinquency?

At what stage in peer group orientation do Mexican-American youth become involved with alcohol and tobacco? Other questions, such as the

relations between leaving school, drug abuse, and delinquency could be

addressed through such a longitudinal cohort study.

Value orientation also needs additional study. Although social class was

very weakly associated with violent delinquency, low value orientation

scores are consistent factors in both drug use and delinquency. The VOS

was developed in Ohio in 1963 to differentiate between delinquents and

nondelinquents. The Watts Scale, similar to the VOS, is more skill oriented. Another scale, for assessment of Mexican-American youth, needs to be

developed to insure proper evaluation of the relations between value orientation, social class, delinquency, and drug use.

156
REFERENCES

Bachman, J.G.; O’Malley, P.M.; and Johnston, L.D. Youth in Transition.

6. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, 1978.

Berry, W.D., and Feldman, S. Multiple regression in practice. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in

the Social Sciences, 1985.

Botvin, J.B.; Baker, E.; Renick, N.; Filazzola, A.D.; and Botvin, N. A

cognitive-behavioral approach to substance abuse prevention. Addict

Behav 9:137-147, 1984.

Bowlby, J.H. Attachment and Loss. Vol. 3. New York: Basic Books,

1973.

Caetano, R. Drinking and Hispanic-American family life: The view outside the clinic walls. Alcohol Health Res World: 22-34, 1987.

Carpenter, C.; Glassner, B.; Johnson, B.D.; and Laughlin, J. Kids, Drugs,

and Crime. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 1988.

Cemkovich, S.A., and Giordano, P. Family relationships and delinquency.

Criminology 25(2):295-321, 1987.

Cohen, A.K. Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang. New York: The

Free Press, 1955.

Dembo, R.; Grandon, G.; LaVoie, L.; Schmeidler, J.; and Burgos, W. Parents and drugs revisited: Some further evidence in support of social

learning theory. Criminology 24(1):85-104, 1985.

Elliott, D.S.; Huizinga, D.; and Ageton, S.S. Explaining Delinquency and

Drug Use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1985.

Gilbert, J.M., and Alcocer, A.M. Alcohol use and Hispanic youth: An

overview. J Drug Issues 18(1):33-48, 1988.

Gilbert, J.M., and Cervantes, R. Patterns and practices of alcohol use

among Mexican-Americans: A comprehensive review. MexicanAmericans and Alcohol. Monograph II, Spanish Speaking Mental Health

Research Center. University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles,

CA, 1987.

Goldstein, P.J. The drugs/violence nexus: A tripartite conceptual framework. J Drug Issues 15:493-506, 1985.

Guinn, R. Characteristics of drug use among Mexican-American students.

J Drug Educ 5(3):235-241, 1975.

Hindelang, M.; Hirschi, T.; and Weis, J.G. Correlates of delinquency. Am

Soc Rev 44(6):995-1014, 1979.

Hirschi, T. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1969.

Holck, S.E.; Warren, C.W.; Smith, J.C.; and Rochat, R.W. Alcohol consumption among Mexican American and anglo women: Results of a survey along the U.S.-Mexico border. J Stud Alcohol 45(2):149-154, 1984.

Horowitz, R. Honor and the American Dream: Culture and Identity in a

Chicano Community. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press,

1983.

157
Hughes, H.M. The Fantastic Lodge: The Autobiography of a Drug Addict

New York: Fawcett, 1963.

Jessor, R., and Jessor, S.L Problem Behavior and Psychosocial Development: A Longitudinal Study of Youth. New York: Academic Press, 1977.

Johnson, K.A. The application of social control theory in understanding

adolescent alcohol use. Sociol Spectrum 4:275-294, 1988.

Johnston, L.D., and O’Malley, P.M. Why do the nation’s students use

drugs and alcohol? Self-reported reasons from nine national surveys.

J Drug Issues 16(1):29-66, 1986.

Johnston, L.D.; O’Malley, P.M.; and Bachman, J.G. Drug Use Among

American High School Students, College Students, and Other Young

Adults: National Trends Through 1985. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1986.

Kandel, D.B. Adolescent marijuana use: Role of patents and peers.

Science 181:1067-1070, 1973.

Kandel, D.B. Drug and drinking behavior among youth. Annu Rev Soc

6:235-285, 1980.

Kandel, D.B.; Simcha-Fagan, O.; and Davies, M. Risk factors for delinquency and illicit drug use from adolescence to young adulthood. J Drug

Issues 16(1):67-90, winter 1986.

Kim, J.O., and Mueller, C.W. Factor Analysis: Statistical Methods and

Practical Issues. California: Sage Publications, 1978.

Landis, J.R.; Dinite, S.; and Reckless, W. Implementing two theories of

delinquency: Value orientation and awareness of limited opportunity.

Sociol Soc Res 47:408-416, 1963.

Landis, J.R., and Scarpitti, F. Perceptions regarding value orientation and

legitimate opportunity: Delinquents and non-delinquents. Soc Forces

44:83-91, 1965a.

Landis, J.R., and Scarpitti, F. Delinquent and non-delinquent value orientation and opportunity awareness. Criminologica 3:61-69, 1965b.

Lewis-Beck, M.S. Applied Regression: An Introduction. Beverly Hills,

CA: Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the

Social Sciences, 1983.

McCord, W., and McCord, J. The Psychopath: An Essay on the Criminal

Mind New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1964.

Newcomb, M.D., and Bentler, P.M. Consequences of Adolescent Drug Use:

Impact on the Lives of Young Adults. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1988.

Newcomb, M.D.; Maddahian, E.; Skager, R.; and Bentler, P.M. Substance

abuse and psychosocial risk factors among teenagers: Associations with

sex, age, ethnicity, and type of school. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse

13(4):413-433, 1987.

Oetting, E.R., and Beauvais, F. Common elements in youth drug abuse:

Peer clusters and other psychosocial factors. J Drug Issues 17(2):133-

151, 1987.

Olmedo, E.L.; Martinez, J.L.; and Martinez, S.R. Measure of acculturation

for chicano adolescents. Psychol Rep 42:159-170, 1978.

158
Osgood, D.W.; Johnston, L.D.; O’Malley, P.M.; and Bachman, J.G. The

generality of deviance in late adolescence and early adulthood. Am Sociol

Rev 53:81-93, 1988.

Perez, R.; Padilla, A.M.; Ramirez, A.; and Rodriguez, M. Correlates and

changes over time in drug and alcohol use within a barrio population.

Am J Community Psycho1 8(6):621-636, 1980.

Simonds, J.F., and Kashani, J. Specific drug use and violence in delinquent

boys. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 7(314):305-322, 1980.

Watters, J.K.; Reinarman, C.; and Fagan, J. Causality, context., and contingency: Relationships between drug abuse and delinquency. Contemp

Drug Probl 12(3):351-373, 1985.

Wilson, J.Q., and Herrnstein, R.J. Crime and Human Nature. New York:

Simon and Schuster, 1985.

AUTHORS

W. David Watts, Ph.D.

Dean

College of Arts and Sciences

Southeastern Louisiana University

P.O. Box 767, SLU

Hammond, LA 70402

Loyd S. Wright, Ed.D.

Professor of Psychology

Southwest Texas State University

San Marcos, TX 78666

159
Gangs, Drugs, and Violence

Joan Moore

INTRODUCTION

Few phenomena studied by social scientists are as easily stereotyped as

gang violence and drugs, particularly when they are taken in conjunction.

If we are to explain variations in gang violence as it is associated with

drugs, we must shake loose from these stereotypes. That is the purpose of

this chapter-to think about variations in gang violence, especially as these

variations relate to drug use and dealing. These considerations will bring

up questions about major economic changes and their effects in poor

communities.

The first major stereotype has to do with the assumptions made about

gangs-i.e., with how “gang” is conceptualized and the fact that few people

acknowledge any variations in gang structure and behavior. The second

major stereotype is the tendency to focus on criminal behavior to the exclusion of group and community dynamics (Horowitz 1983) and to blame “the

gang” for criminal acts of individual gang members.

There are several reasons for such stereotyping. The body of empirical

research on gangs and drugs is very small, and it is indeed difficult to do

valid research on these topics. This would not present so much of a problem if gangs were part of everybody’s ordinary experience. But to most

researchers they are esoteric, hence the absence of a broad empirical base

prevents refutation of long-held stereotypes. A researcher must derive most

of his or her ideas about gangs either from theoretical sources, which are

thin at best, or from some other source, usually one that is rooted in a current public issue, widely discussed on television and in the newspapers.

This poses problems, because the sporadic public concern about gangs and

drugs is usually so intense and moralistic that police and media actually

define the phenomena, quite apart from reality. Both police and media

have powerful motives of self-interest. Police tend to limit their concern to

law enforcement issues and the need for more police power; the media

sensationalize their coverage to attract audiences. What is known about

160
gangs and crack, for example, comes almost entirely from the media and

police, and, in most instances, it is sensationalized. Together, the police

and media help create what one author (Cohen 1980) calls “moral panics.”

Moral panics usually center on fears and outrage about the behavior of the

young-and, in our country, especially about the behavior of poor and

racially distinctive young men. And most gang members in today’s society

tend to be poor and racially distinctive (Zatz 1987).

There were young male groups called “gangs” throughout American history,

and they have always generated considerable public concern about real or

imagined violence (Johnson 1979). When historians try to reconstruct what

actually happened with those early city gangs, they usually find that the

facts are few and poorly documented. The truth is, little was ever known

about those groups, and most of what historians tell us comes from the

newspapers of the day. The same circumstances exist today. What we

know is distorted by the lens of widespread moral panic. This distortion is

so great that one venerable researcher summed it up by saying, “It is possible that we know less about the current problem than we knew about

gangs and gang violence in the 1960s” (Spergel 1984, p. 199).

GANG VIOLENCE AS VARIABLE: ASSUMPTIONS AND

TAXONOMIES

Popular associations for the term “gang” range from the “West Side Story”

image of a group of kids whose members are aggressive and rebellious—

but appealing-to the “gangster” image of a highly disciplined criminal

organization with elaborate networks of “soldiers” under strict control from

the top. Both images appear almost interchangeably in the media. Recently, a confusing blend of the two has been purveyed-the gang as an organized drug enterprise staffed by unpredictably aggressive and rebellious

young people. Neither image recognizes any variations in gangs: the

implication is that if you have a gang in your home town it is or soon will

be like the stereotype.

Of course, formal law enforcement definitions of a gang concentrate on

criminality, like this one from Los Angeles County, which also abolishes

the distinction between individual and collective criminal behavior:

A gang is a group of people who form an allegiance for a

common purpose and engage in acts injurious to public

health and public morals, who pervert or obstruct justice or

the due administration of laws, or engage in (or have engaged in) criminal activity, either individually or collectively, and who create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation

within the community. (McBride, personal communication,

1989)

161
This definition was provided courtesy of Wesley McBride of the Los

Angeles Sheriffs. The definition was arrived at in 1989 after substantial

inhouse discussion. The deliberate phrasing “either individually or collectively” relates to an effort to hold the gang legally responsible for criminal

acts of individual members.

Social scientists who use police records must live with the police definition

of gang and sometimes erroneous police identification of individuals as gang

members, and, in some jurisdictions, like Los Angeles, they must also deal

with the fact that police records confound individual and gang criminal

activity.

Until 1989, Los Angeles Police and Sheriffs Departments both counted as

gang homicides all homicides in which somebody they identified as a gang

member was involved-either as perpetrator or as victim. Other jurisdictions, such as Chicago, have traditionally counted as gang homicides only

those homicides in which there is a documented gang motivation (Moore

1988a). Klein and Maxson (1985) used the broad Los Angeles definition of

gang homicide in their efforts to distinguish gang from nongang homicides,

and this may pose some problems for their analysis.

Most social scientists who study gang violence have made some effort to

develop the characteristics of the gang beyond simple stereotypes. The

most ambitious of these date back to the 1960s, when the theoretical perspectives on gangs were reexamined for the first time since Thrasher’s

seminal work (1927) on the hundreds of Chicago ethnic youth gangs in the

1920s.

Some theorists focused on hypothetical and quintessential features of the

gang, with no interest in variations. For example, Yablonsky (1970) argued

that youth gangs are casual and rather fragile groupings. He generalized

that the violent gang is a “near group,” with little cohesion, shifting membership, and pathological leadership. Gang violence was seen as a manifestation of collective behavior, with little to do either with drugs or with any

community characteristic. The most notable subcultural theorist of the same

era, Walter B. Miller, argued that the gang and its violence simply reflected

“the focal concerns of lower class culture” (Miller 1958, p. 18) thus allowing for little variation either in violence or in other behaviors.

The most important typology was that of Cloward and Ohlin (1960), and it

did allow for variation and, quite explicitly, for drugs and for violence.

Their basic concern with community variation was an important breakthrough. They distinguished three types of gangs—criminal, violent, and

retreatist—each in a special kind of lower class community. All three types

of gang arise from disparities between aspirations and opportunities in poor

communities. Therefore, the local opportunity structure comes to be of

162
prime importance in determining which of these three subcultures will

emerge.

However, the details of their taxonomy are simply not convincing in most

modem circumstances. “Criminal” gangs were to be found in stable slums

with an organized criminal enterprise: youth gangs served as recruiting

grounds for those adult criminal organizations. The portrait was drawn

almost entirely from images of AI Capone’s Chicago, not even utilizing

Thrasher’s classic study of more than 1,000 youth gangs of the same era.

The second type, the “violent” gangs, were to be found in slum areas that

were unorganized, unstable, and transient. Cloward and Ohlin took as

examples the massive housing projects of large Eastern cities (1960). Such

“disorganized” communities, they said, did not offer the structured criminal

opportunities of the older criminal slums, This may have been a plausible

operational definition at the time, even though obviously very limited

because only a few cities had such projects. Ironically, some of today’s

housing projects appear to be the homes of gangs that are both violent and

criminal (Perkins 1987). The third type, the “retreatist” gang, had a drugusing, kicks-oriented subculture and emerged among those individuals or

gangs who “failed to find a place for themselves in criminal or conflict

subcultures” (Cloward and Ohlin 1960, p. 183). The empirical grounding

for this category was also very slight.

The gangs we have studied in East Los Angeles cut across Cloward and

Ohlin’s classifications: they fight (and are thus violent); most members use

drugs (but they are certainly not “retreatist”); and a substantial fraction continue to use drugs into adulthood, supporting themselves through various

illegal as well as legal stratagems (but they are certainly not effective criminal organizations). Clearly, the communities in which they live do not conform to any of the stereotypes purveyed in Cloward and Ohlin: they are

not unstable, disorganized communities, nor are they communities with

strong criminal infrastructures.

Cloward and Ohlin were among the first to argue that variations in community characteristics affect variations in gang behavior. It remains an extremely important argument, and one that tends to get lost in contemporary

research. Some social scientists are still working with taxonomies of the

gang that ignore community characteristics (e.g., Miller (1982), who emphasized gang motivation). Some social scientists still use Cloward and

Ohlin’s typology quite uncritically (Komblum 1987), and others adapt pieces

of it.

Recently, Curry and Spergel (1988) applied the typology to an understanding of variations in gang homicides in Chicago. Lacking an ethnographic

basis to characterize local neighborhoods, the authors used ethnicity instead.

With no ethnographic justification, their measure of “social disorganization

was simply and grossly the concentration of Hispanics in a community”

163
(Curry and Spergel 1988, p. 387). They were concerned with “the classic

social disorganization model of areas inhabited by residents who are marginally integrated into the city’s organizational and political life” (Curry and

Spergel 1988, p. 386). Their analysis overlooks the possibility that such

communities may be highly integrated in ethnic terms. In any event, this

ungrounded imputation of “disorganization” to Hispanic communities in

Chicago is a far cry from the “disorganization” originally discussed by

Cloward and Ohlin. Hispanic communities in Chicago had very high rates

of gang homicide, but Curry and Spergel’s argument that this is because

they were “disorganized” is simply not convincing.

If we are really interested in clarifying the connections between gangs,

drugs, and violence, it is time to transcend this typology and begin to look

at new variables—both with regard to the community and with regard to

gang behavior. Before addressing variations, three topics will be discussed:

our findings on intragang variations in violence in our study in East Los

Angeles, other correlates of variations in violence, and the confusion

between individual and gang-related violence.

FINDINGS FROM THE EAST LOS ANGELES STUDY: CHANGE

AND VARIATION’

The Chicano gangs studied in East Los Angeles generally started out in the

1930s and 1940s as friendship groups of adolescents who shared common

interests. There was a more or less clearly defined territory in which most

of the members lived. The members were committed to defending one

another, the territory, and the gang name in the status-setting fights that

occurred in school and on the streets. Their families tended to live conventionally. Although some families may have been troubled, this was by no

means true for all of them.

As the members of the original clique aged, the clique began to splinter.

Some of the members married and settled down, while others remained

involved in a street lifestyle, often mired in drug use and finding only

marginal-if any-employment between periodic spells in prison.

In a very few years, another clique of the gang came into being. These

were youth from the neighborhood who were too young to join the “originals,” but who valued the gang name and wanted to extend its reputation.

The gangs developed an age-graded system. In these gangs, each clique

was fairly self-contained, with not much association between older and

younger cliques (although this may be changing). In the study discussed

here, 25 percent probability samples of 8 male and affiliated female cliques

were interviewed in two long-standing gangs, for a total of 157 respondents.

Half of the cliques had been active in the 1940s to 1950s, and half in the

1960s to 1970s.

164
As time passed, the gangs became quasi-institutionalized, and street socialization became more important. Normal adolescent interests in partying and

dating combined with street socialization and the gang value of defiance of

authority to lead the gang to accept or encourage drug use by most members and property offenses by some members (Moore and Vigil 1989).

Most serious drug users in these neighborhoods began their drug use with

gang “homeboys,” i.e., fellow gang members. The gangs are—intentionally-highly visible: they fight other gangs and they spray their signature

graffiti all over the place. Police harass them and some members go into

juvenile facilities for variable periods of time. The point of this description

is that the popular, police, and social-science stereotypes of the gang are

invalid for these groups.

The gang is at its peak in adolescence. It is the rowdiest of all the adolescent peer groups in any given community. It has the reputation of being—

and usually is-the roughest, the most drug using, and the most sexually

active group around. There is violence inherent in some of the gang processes. But it is an adolescent group, not a unit in a massively organized

crime syndicate. Apart from gang fighting, graffiti, and occasional forays

into vandalism, which are gang activities, delinquency, including drug dealing, is a matter of individual or pair activity, not an activity of the gang as

a whole (Moore and Vigil 1987).

Over time, the gang continues to be marginally salient to a fraction of

employed and married young adults who, for a few years, keep on “going

down to the neighborhood” to hang out with the homeboys on weekends or

after work. But these ties tend to dissolve over time, especially after children are born. The clique has ceased to function when “you go down to

the neighborhood and there’s nobody there,” as one man put it. But gang

ties are very important in adulthood for those members who become seriously involved in drugs or are imprisoned. Violence is different, with different roots, in the adolescent period and in adulthood. Violence among

adult ex-gang members tends to be intense in prison, with prisoners replicating the gang affiliations and gang battles of adolescence, typically on a

broader scale (Moore 1978). Gang members also kill and are killed during

adulthood in the course of individual criminal activity, often drug related,

but such violence is clearly not gang related.

These observations imply that gangs change. The White Fence gang of the

1980s is not the same as the White Fence gang of 1960: there are continuities, but there are also changes. What anybody “knows” about a gang in

any given year—even a gang member’s knowledge—may in certain specifics be out of date the very next year.

Some of these changes are particularly important to the question of the kind

of violence that is uniquely and distinctively gang related-that violence that

stems from fights between rival gangs during adolescence. In East Los

165
Angeles, gang warfare became increasingly lethal. In the 1970s, in Los

Angeles, far more Chicanos than blacks were killed in gang warfare, for

example (Loya et al. 1986).

Our research suggests that this escalating gang violence was primarily

related to gang processes during adolescence (Moore 1989). Each clique

wanted to match or outdo its predecessor clique in standing up for the gang

name, and, for many cliques, this meant increasing the rate and intensity of

violence. It meant more guns and more impersonal violence directed at

bystanders in, for example, drive-by shootings. The general escalation of

violence also may have been related psychopharmacologically to drug use

within the gang: there was increased polydrug use and more use of drugs

like barbiturates and PCP, which have been found to be associated with

violence. More recent, and generally more violent, cliques-those active in

the 1970s—were using significantly more drugs during their late teens-the

more violent years (table 1).

TABLE 1. Mean number of drugs used (including alcohol) by age, cohort,

and sex

Ages

11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 N

Males cliques

1970s .4 .8 1.6 2.1 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.2 2.5 60

1950s .2 .3 .8 1.4 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.6 46

Females Cliques

1970s .l .4 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.5 2.2 2.3 2.0 33

1950s .1 .2 .5 .8 1.2 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.6 18

NOTE Kendall’s tau showed significant differences between 1970s and 1950s cliques in distributions

of number of drugs were as follows: males at ages 12 (>.05), 13 (>.10)$ 14 (>.05), 15

(>.01), 16 (>.001). 17 (>.001), 18 (>.001), and 19 (>.001); females at ages 14 (>.05), 16

(>.01). 17 (>.01), and 18 (>.001).

It is important to note that within this general escalation of violence, there

was substantial interclique variation. Most of this variation was related to

elements of the gang subculture, like the clique’s emphasis on and definition of locura or wildness, and to the increasing reliance on street socialization over the years. In some cliques, locura was defined in violent terms,

but in others, even in gangs with a long history of violence, locura came to

be defined more in terms of drug experimentation than of violence, and the

cliques were quite peaceful. However, Cloward and Ohlin’s notion that

crime for profit cannot tolerate the chaos of violence in gangs was not

166
corroborated: there was no statistically significant relationship between the

number of members in the clique dealing drugs and the number of deaths

in gang warfare. As a sidelight, it may be interesting to note that gang

member reminiscences suggest that gang warfare declined during the first

years after the introduction of heroin use in the 1950s, when users went

from one neighborhood to another to buy the drug.

After a decade or more of escalation, the level of lethal intergang violence

in East Los Angeles began to decline in the 1980s sharply (Baker 1988).

Why? There are several possible answers. The simplest may be that intergang violence has its own dynamics. It stands to reason that a gang whose

members are regularly killed will ultimately have some difficulty in recruiting-even from the most ambitiously rowdy youngsters. Thus escalating

violence may carry the seeds of its own destruction.

But there are other possible explanations. One is that, in the 1970s, during

the peak of gang violence, East Los Angeles saw one gang program after

another disappear. Earlier studies indicated that such programs—usually

community based—were recalled by most members as providing real, and

occasionally long-lasting, links to conventional life (Moore et al. 1978). As

those programs disappeared, the gangs were increasingly left to themselves-and to the police. This may actually have enhanced gang members’

sense that they were “outlaws,” not acceptable in community programs. Yet

in the 1980s, a program funded by the California Youth Authority began to

hire gang members in East Los Angeles to mediate and reduce the violence,

on a gang-by-gang basis. A number of respondents in our East Los

Angeles study felt that this program not only effectively reduced violence,

but also had an even broader effect: in addition to their mediating functions, the gang-member workers provided a continuous link with conventional life in the community and a continuing reminder that there was a different way of doing things.

Yet a third possible explanation has to do with some other changes in the

gangs. Age grading may be starting to blur, so that an increasing number

of gang members fail to “mature out” of gang membership because of economic and demographic changes in the community. Increased numbers of

men in their late twenties and thirties remain affiliated with the gang (Vigil

1989), often mixing with adolescent members, and perhaps serving as moderating influences in gang warfare. There is some question about this, however. Young adult gang members who go back to their gang hangouts can

readily be drawn into gang battles that are really those of younger cliques.

Thus, in some 45 incidents of gang-war violence in one of these gang

neighborhoods studied during 1976, almost half of those involved were in

their early twenties (Spergel 1984; Klein and Maxson 1985).

In summary, gangs do change. Each of our cliques went through a stormy

adolescent period with some fraction clinging to gang membership into

167
adulthood. Bach successive clique showed very different kinds of behavior

and values. Beyond the obvious fact that gangs may become quasi-institutionalized over time, it is very difficult to predict exactly how they will

evolve (Moore 1988b).

DIFFERENCES PROM PLACE TO PLACE AND GROUP TO

GROUP

If gangs differ from one time to another, it is obvious that they differ from

one place to another and from one ethnic group to another. Gangs appear

in distinct "culture areas," and these culture areas differ from one ethnic

group to another even within the same city. They also differ from one city

to another, even within the same ethnic group.

These variations are important in understanding gang violence. For

example, during the 1970s, deaths from gang violence were very high

among Hispanics in both Los Angeles and Chicago, but were low among

blacks in both cities. Currently, the reverse is true in Los Angeles, and

Chicago seems to be going through a similar transformation (Curry and

Spergel 1988). Whatever is happening to gangs in these two cities is

occurring differently in black and Hispanic communities.

Furthermore, what little comparative research has been done on gangs

shows significant differences in social structure from one culture area to

another. The gangs studied in East Los Angeles are age graded, but members very rarely “graduate” from one clique to another. They do graduate

in Hispanic gangs that have been studied in the Midwest. The East Los

Angeles gangs are informally organized, without acknowledged leadership.

Black gangs studied in both Los Angeles and Milwaukee are more formally

organized, with preplanned meetings, dues, and officers (Hagedorn 1988).

In addition, to return to Cloward and Ohlin, poor minority communities

have been differentially affected by recent economic restructuring. For

example, many rustbelt black communities have been economically devastated (Wilson 1988), while many Hispanic communities have experienced a

large influx of exploitable immigrants: the effect on adolescent gang formation and behavior is different (Moore 1989; Hagedom 1988). The variations between gangs in different culture areas are unquestionably related

both to gang violence and to drug-using and drug-dealing patterns, both in

adolescence and adulthood (Moore 1988a). These variations also underscore

the need for an empirically based taxonomy of gangs that is related to community variations. What is true for one gang is not necessarily true for

another.

168
GANG VIOLENCE AND INDIVIDUAL VIOLENCE

The second major stereotype, the tendency to attribute all behavior performed by gang members to the gang as a whole, becomes very important

in untangling many of today’s confusions about so-called gang violence.

One of the most common interpretations of today’s gang violence, for example, is that it stems from gang involvement in increasingly violent drug

marketing.

As noted, in the East Los Angeles gangs we have studied, some members

in their peak adolescent years committed property offenses—usually small

scale—and sometimes these involved violence. Occasionally the member

did this on his or her own, but more often with another homeboy or

homegirl (Moore and Vigil 1987). Was this gang-related violence? Gang

members would fiercely contest such an interpretation. They would argue

that it was not a gang activity, but an individual activity.

The same pattern continues into young adulthood, but the line becomes

blurred. By this age, a good portion of the gang-usually the more stable

members-are involved in their jobs and their families, and their priorities

have changed. Some of these married men and women may occasionally

still appear in gang hang-outs, but many of the older hang-out regulars are

involved in a drug-related street lifestyle, with continuous “ripping and

running.” Many of the drug users market drugs-and so do some of the

nonusers: it is a lucrative business unless or until they are arrested. Almost inevitably, dealers turn to their homeboys and homegirls when they do

go into business. Some of the drug deals go sour, and there is violence.

Is this gang-related violence? Again, gang members would contest such an

interpretation. The gang itself is not acting as a unit to deal drugs, but

individual members of the gang are dealing drugs, and drawing on one

another as partners, completely outside the context of the gang as a whole.

Does it make any difference? Yea, it does. Many of the people hanging

around with the gang in young adulthood are at loose ends with their lives,

still involved in adolescent loyalties and preoccupations. They are, not,

however, caught up consciously in a violence-prone criminal activity. They

may be aware of such activities, and they may occasionally dabble in illegal

income-generating activities, but they have not, in their minds, joined a

criminal group. This self-concept makes a difference.

It is particularly important to sort out the drug factor, because it has generally been assumed that the recent increase in gang-related violence in a

number of cities is related to the increase in gang involvement in the sales

of cocaine and crack. It has been assumed that gangs were a ready-made

crack marketing unit, since they were already organized. And it has further

been assumed that gangs were highly prone to violence. Police subscribed

to this interpretation, and so have the media.

169
However, when these assumptions were actually tested with Los Angeles

Police Department data for 1983 to 1985, they proved to be unfounded

(Klein et al. 1988). cocaine drug sales did increase markedly during the

period, as expected. Involvement of individuals identified as gang members

in drug sales did increase slightly, but the overwhelming majority of individuals arrested by police in these five South Central Los Angeles stations

(75 percent) were not gang members. In cases in which more than one

person was involved in the drug sale, the number of members from the

same gang actually declined. Most important, perhaps, was that when gang

members were involved in cocaine sales, the transactions were not more

likely to involve violence or even the use of guns.

Most of the arrests were for small-scale drug dealing. Arguing that such

low-level activities are less likely to provoke much violence, the researchers

thought that they might get some answers by looking at homicides. The

answers point in the same direction: drug motives did not increase in

importance for homicides involving gang members, whereas they did for

homicides that did not involve gang members. Cocaine, then, had the effect

of generating violence, but it did not appear to be mediated by gangmember involvement.

These are surprising findings only if one has in mind the image of “gang”

as a tightly organized, violence-prone, criminal conspiracy, ready to move

into drug dealing effectively and efficiently when a new drug comes along.

Or if one believes that whatever a gang member does necessarily involves

the gang as a whole. Some of the gangs involved in the arrests in South

Central Los Angeles may well be like this, and, since 1985, more gangs

may have become like this. There are gangs like this in other cities.

Padilla, for example, argues that the Chicago Puerto Rican gangs he studies

are such “ethnic enterprises” (Padilla, personal communication, 1989). It

may be that some of the more loosely organized gangs will evolve to become organized criminal groups (Moore 1988b). Such an evolution is not

evident from the arrest data, nor is it apparent from popular media portrayals or from beliefs of the police. In fact, Klein et al. (1988) took their

hypotheses from Los Angeles police beliefs, and one of the more interesting

implications from their research was that the police beliefs were wrong.

Inciardi (1989) reported that a similar media connection was made in Miami

between gang activity and crack dealing. But Miami grand juries empaneled in 1985 and again in 1988 (after a substantial increase in the number

of gangs) found that youth gangs were not involved in crack dealing.

Again, police and media perceptions can be erroneous and seriously

misleading.

To confound the matter further, in at least two cities—Detroit and New

York—research on crack-dealing organizations found that, although these

organizations call themselves gangs, they did not grow out of youth gangs,

and they had none of the characteristics described earlier (Fagan, personal

170
communication, 1989; Taylor 1990). They are actually criminal organizations, and they happen to call themselves gangs. There are also youthful

criminal organizations that deal cocaine in New York (Williams 1989), but

they too are not youth gangs.

The crack economy has vastly increased the number of drug dealers in

several inner-city communities: the technology and availability of cocaine

have coincided with a shriveling of decent job opportunities in many of

these communities. According to recent evidence, crack dealing almost

invariably involves violence; dealers threaten both each other and the community (Johnson et al., in press). But the role of gangs in this expanding

crack economy is still questionable and poorly understood.

IMPLICATIONS

To recapitulate what has been said so far, there is one kind of gang-related

violence that is inherent in gangs-intergang conflict. Gang members and

innocent bystanders alike are hurt and killed by this kind of violence.

Sometimes it seems that this kind of violence is self-perpetuating, continuously escalating. But, as the East Los Angeles case illustrates, intergang

conflict can also decline, and the declines may happen "naturally" (on their

own) or with the help of programs that intervene. Such declines may have

little if anything to do with drugs.

There is another kind of violence that appears related to gangs, but the connection is even fainter. That violence is the kind that is related to illegal

activity, particularly drug marketing. It is not safe to assume that drugrelated violence is inherent in gangs. Some youth gangs gradually develop

into criminal organizations, but this is not the norm. Some violent criminal

organizations may be composed of men and women who were once associated with gangs, but there is little evidence that this is the norm, either.

However, there certainly is evidence that violent drug-dealing organizations

have grown and flourished without gang connections.

In many cities throughout the country, gangs have been cropping up for the

first time since the 1950s (Needle and Stapleton 1983). Gangs have proliferated at the same time as crack cocaine dealing has proliferated, in many

of the same neighborhoods. Police and media have been quick to jump to

the conclusion that the two are connected and that we are facing a national—or at least a regional—conspiracy. But, in at least two cities, Milwaukee and Columbus, in which police made such claims about gang connections to nearby metropolitan gangs, there is research evidence to the

contrary (Hagedorn 1988; Huff 1988). Even though they had similar names

(“Vice Lords”), in neither city were local gangs actually drug-dealing

branches of gangs in larger cities.

171
There may be an alternate explanation for gangs to be proliferating in the

1980s, just as there is for there to be an upsurge in illegal drug market—

ing-gang and nongang—in these communities. If a community’s economy

is not based solidly on wages and salaries, other economies will begin to

develop. Welfare, bartering, informal economic arrangements, and illegal

economies become substitutes—simply because people must find a way to

live. Young people growing up in these communities have little to look

forward to.

Research on gangs should take economic factors into account. Such

considerations would help transcend the limitations of earlier communityoriented taxonomies of gangs, as well as the naive empiricism of many

studies. Any new taxonomy of gang violence as related to drugs must take

into account the variations in local underclass development and in local

underground economies, especially the extent to which these underground

economies are based in drug dealing. By no means are all of them based

in drug dealing, as Sullivan (1989) indicates.

In addition, ethnicity and other subcultural variations should be recognized.

As part of this, variations in gang social structure and in gang values about

violence and the gang’s role in the neighborhood should be included as

variables affecting the extent to which gangs may become involved in violent drug dealing. Even the scanty data now available point to these vatiables as critical in explaining variations in gang violence. Although the

analysis presented here falls short of a taxonomy to replace that of Cloward

and Ohlin, it seems clear that such a taxonomy should be a goal for future

research.

PROBLEMS IN GANG RESEARCH

Part of the stereotyping of gangs occurs because it is difficult to conduct

empirical research on gangs without falling victim to a variety of distortions. The most obvious is that much research is conducted with gang

members in more or less coercive institutional settings, and the nature of

the setting may affect or distort the findings.

Few people study gangs on the streets or in their natural settings. There is

no strong tradition of street ethnography, as there is with research on illicit

drugs (Akins and Beschner 1980), and it is obviously mote difficult to do

street ethnography with any youth group, let alone a quasi-illicit one.

In contrast to street ethnography, other unique limitations are found in

studies based on interviews in correctional settings. First, of course, there

is a sampling problem: gang members that go to jail are not necessarily

representative of the gang. Then, too, research inside institutional settings

is constrained by the fact that the status-set of the respondent revolves

around his or her inmate role-present, past, or future. The gang member

172
is so removed from the everyday realities of the gang-home-community

web and so concentrated on his or her own offense and the gang in prison

that distortions are bound to occur even if there were motivations to be

truthful. Unless the respondent has reason to trust the interviewer, there is

no particular incentive to be truthful, while there may be many incentives to

distort. Researchers who rely only on police statistics about gangs and

gang members, of course, are on particularly shaky grounds (Moore 1988a).

Research done out of community agencies—e.g., gang intervention programs—poses similar problems. There is a sampling problem, even when

researchers make strenuous efforts to avoid bias (Fagan 1989). A potential

motivational distortion is that repentant or “redeemed” gang members in a

program may overemphasize the evils of the gang they have just left, and

program staff—usually embattled in any local government—may have even

stronger selective and interpretive biases, trying to justify their own program. In addition, active young gang members are often so caught up in

their own fantasies and mythologies that a researcher may find it difficult to

extricate self-aggrandizing myths from the often grubby realities.

The East Los Angeles research reported earlier uses a research strategy that

has concentrated on retrospective studies of gang life. In what is termed a

“collaborative model” (Moore 1977; Moore et al. 1980). This is similar to

the street ethnography approach, with the important exception that research

contact points are men and women who have been members of the gangs

and that research design and instruments are developed in collaboration with

these same people. For example, in research based on the collaborative

model, there is a heavy reliance on lengthy, semi-structured interviews.

This means that academic members of the research team, with all of their

misperceptions, false questions, and facile misinterpretations, must actually

interact with men and women who have been immersed in the gang subculture, and test out questions and ideas before they integrate them into

research designs and methods. This has been one of the most important

benefits of the collaborative approach: the continued confrontation with an

emic perspective is a vital corrective. The collaborative approach also provides an effective means to develop a probability sample of gang members

(Moore and Long 1987), since an accurate roster of original members can

be compiled, and a high proportion can be located by utilizing ex-gangmember staff networks. Such research may have limitations often associated with retrospective research, but those limitations are not necessarily

inherent in the collaborative approach. Hagedorn (1988), for example, used

the collaborative approach with active young adult gang members, to obtain

information about current status as well as gang history.

In sum, all research on illicit and quasi-illicit activity poses serious questions of emic validity: because gang members are usually involved in illicit

activity to some degree, but gangs are also adolescent groups, their study

poses particular challenges to sociological and ethnographic research.

173
FOOTNOTES

1. Data are derived largely from grant DA 03114 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Points of view and opinions stated do not necessarily represent the official position or policy of the National Institute

on Drug Abuse. For details on sampling, etc., see Moore and Long

(1987).

REFERENCES

Akins, C., and Beschner, G., eds.. Ethnography: A Research Tool for

Policymakers in the Drug and Alcohol Fields. DHHS Pub. No.

(ADM)80-946. Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,

1980. 128 pp.

Baker, B. Chicano gangs: A history of violence. Los Angeles Times,

December 11, 1988. p. 1.

Cloward, R., and Ohlin, L. Delinquency and Opportunity. New York: The

Free Press, 1960. 220 pp.

Cohen, S. Folk Devils and Moral Panics. Oxford: Martin Robinson, 1980.

224 pp.

Curry, D., and Spergel, I. Gang homicide, delinquency, and community.

Criminology 26:381-405, 1988.

Fagan, J. The social organization of drug use and drug dealing among

urban gangs. Criminology 27:633-670, 1989.

Hagedom, J. People and Folks. Chicago: Lake View Press, 1988.

237 pp.

Horowitz, R. The end of the youth gang. Criminology 21:585-600, 1983.

Huff, R. Youth gangs and public policy in Ohio: Findings and recommendations. Presented at the Ohio Conference on Youth Gangs and the

Urban Underclass, Columbus, OH, May 25, 1988.

Johnson, D. Policing the Urban Underworld. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1979. 240 pp.

Johnson, B.; Williams, T.; Dei, K.; and Sanabria, H. Drug abuse in the

inner city: Impact on hard drug users and the community. In: Tonry,

M., and Wilson, J.Q., eds. Drugs and the Criminal Justice System.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, in press.

Klein, M.; Maxson, C.; and Cunningham, L. Gang Involvement in Cocaine

“Rock” Trafficking. Final Report for the National Institute of Justice.

Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 1988.

Klein, M.; Maxson, C.; and Gordon, M. Differences between gang and

non-gang homicides. Criminology 23:209-220, 1985.

Komblum, W. Ganging together: Helping gangs go straight. Soc Issues

and Health Rev 299-104, 1987.

174
Loya, F.; Garcia, P.; Sullivan, P.; Vargas, L.; Allen, N.; and Mercy, J.

Conditional risks of homicide among Anglo, Hispanic, Black and Asian

victims in Los Angeles, 1970-1979. In: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, Report of the Secretary’s Task Force on Black and

Minority Health Vol. 5: Homicide, Suicide and Unintentional Injuries.

Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1986.

Miller, W.B. Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. J Soc Issues 14:5-19, 1958.

Miller, W.B. Violence by Youth Gangs and Groups as a Crime Problem in

Major American Cities. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1982.

Moore, J. The Chicano Pinto Research Project: A case study in collaboration. J Soc Issues 33:144-158, 1977.

Moore, J. Cooking gang statistics. Los Angeles Herald Examiner, January

30, 1988a.

Moore, J. Introduction: Gangs and the underclass: A comparative perspective. In: Hagedorn, J. People and Folks. Chicago: Lake View

Press, 1988b. pp. 3-17.

Moore, J. Is there a Hispanic underclass? Soc Sci Q 70:265-284, 1989.

Moore, J.; Garcia, R.; Garcia, C.; Cerda, L.; and Valencia, F. Homeboys:

Gangs, Drugs and Prison in the Barrios of Los Angeles. Philadelphia:

Temple University Press, 1978. 239 pp.

Moore, J.; Garcia, R.; and Salcido, R. Research in minority communities:

Collaborative and street ethnography models compared. In: Akins, C.,

and Beschner, G., eds. Ethnography: A Research Tool for Policymakers

in the Drug and Alcohol Fields. DHHS Pub. No (ADM)80-946. Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. pp. 4663.

Moore, J., and Long, J. Final Report: Youth Culture vs. Individual Factors in Adult Drug Use. Los Angeles: Community Systems Research,

Inc., 1987. 61 pp.

Moore, J., and Vigil, D. Chicano gangs: Group norms and individual factors related to adult criminality. Aztlan 18:27-44, 1987.

Perkins, U.E. Explosion of Chicago’s Black Street Gangs 1900 to Present.

Chicago: Third World Press, 1987. 80 pp.

Spergel, I. Violent gangs in Chicago: In search of social policy. Soc

Service Rev 58:199-225, 1984.

Sullivan, M. Getting Paid. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989.

Taylor, C. Dangerous Society. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 1990.

Thrasher, F. The Gang. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927.

571 pp.

Vigil, D. Barrio Gangs. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1989.

Williams, T. The Cocaine Kids. New York: Addison-Wesley, 1989.

Wilson, W.J. The Truly Disadvantaged Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1988. 254 pp.

Yablonsky, L. The Violent Gang. Baltimore: Penguin, 1970. 313 pp.

175
Zatz, M. Chicano youths and crime: The creation of a moral panic. Contemporary Crises 11:129-158, 1987.

AUTHOR

Joan Moore, Ph.D.

Professor

Sociology Department

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

P.O. Box 413

Milwaukee, WI 53201

176
The Interrelationships Between

Alcohol and Drugs and Family

Violence

Brenda A. Miller

INTRODUCTION

The relationships between family violence and alcohol and drug problems

are multidimensional and complex. For example, family violence may

occur when the perpetrator has been using or abusing alcohol, drugs, or

both, or the experiences of family violence may lead both to short- and

long-term consequences that include alcohol and drug problems. This chapter presents research findings that explore these multidimensional relationships between family violence and alcohol or drug problems. Three forms

of family violence will be considered: child abuse, childhood sexual abuse,

and spousal violence.

Family violence has received more attention from researchers during the

past 15 years. In 1975, estimates of family violence were obtained from

self-report data for a nationally representative sample of 2,143 families

(Straus et al. 1980). This nationwide survey was repeated in 1985 with

6,002 families, and comparisons to the original survey were made (Straus

and Gelles 1990). Findings revealed that nearly two-thirds of parents reported using either minor or severe violence against their children for the

year before the survey in both 1975 and 1985 (63 percent and 62 percent,

respectively).1 Spousal violence (minor and severe) was reported for

16 percent of the couples in the year before the survey for both the 1975

and 1985 surveys (Straus and Gelles 1990). Despite the evidence of family

violence and the central role of families in our society, there is an incomplete understanding of how alcohol and drug problems affect family relationships, family stability, and family violence.

In 1985, a nationwide random survey indicated that 22 percent of the population had experienced some form of childhood sexual abuse (Timnick

1985) with a greater proportion of females sexually abused (27 percent)

177
than males (16 percent).2 Rates of female sexual abuse were as high as

54 percent in a random sample of women surveyed in San Francisco

(Russell 1983) and 62 percent in a random sample of women in Los Angeles County (Wyatt 1985). Both incest and nonfamilial sexual abuse are included in definitions of childhood sexual abuse; thus, childhood sexual

abuse also includes violence that originates outside the family.

After a brief review of the literature, recent findings from research conducted by the author and her colleagues are presented. Results from two

different studies are presented. The first is a comparison study of alcoholic

women in treatment and a random sample of women in the general population. Experiences of child abuse, childhood sexual abuse, and spousal violence are compared for these two groups. This study was done in collaboration with Dr. William Downs, State University of New York at Buffalo,

and a larger study continuing these investigations has been funded by the

National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse.

The second study focuses on a sample of parolees and their spouses and

examines the interrelationships between alcohol and drug abuse and family

violence. These interrelationships are examined for three generations:

parents of parolees and parolees’ spouses, parolees and their spouses, and,

in a more limited way, children of parolees. This study was done in collaboration with Drs. Howard Blane and Kenneth Leonard, Research Institute

on Alcoholism, Buffalo, NY, and was funded by the National Institute of

Justice.

INTERRELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SPOUSAL VIOLENCE AND

ALCOHOL AND DRUG PROBLEMS

Review of Literature

Over the last 10 years, a large body of descriptive data suggesting that

alcohol use, intoxication, or both may be related to spousal violence has

been presented (Byles 1978; Coleman and Straus 1979; Hilberman and

Munson 1978; Leonard et al. 1985; Van Hasselt et al. 1985). Male batterers and their victims commonly report that the batterer had been drinking or

was drunk during many of the abusive incidents (Chimbos 1978; Gayford

1975; Gelles 1972; Nisonoff and Bitman 1979; Pernanen 1979). Other

studies have assessed whether the male batterer had a drinking problem

(Fagan et al. 1983), or whether he was an alcoholic (Roy 1982). In a random household survey, Kantor and Straus (1989) reported that 70 percent of

the husbands who had severely assaulted their wives reported being drunk

one or more times during the survey year as compared to 50 percent of the

husbands who victimized their wives with more moderate violence and

31 percent of the husbands who did not victimize their wives.

178
There has been relatively little information on the role of drugs in domestic

violence. In conceptualizing the drug-violence nexus for drug users, Coldstem (1985) identified three major types of violence resulting from drug

involvement: psychopharmacological, economic compulsive, and systemic

violence. Psychopharmacological effects of drugs on behavior may be identified in cases in which the offender exhibits irrational, excitable behavior as

a consequence of drug ingestion. Although domestic violence may result

from psychopharmacologic effects, some drug use may actually ameliorate

violent tendencies. Economic compulsive violence occurs when the drug

user engages in violent crimes to support costly drug use. This type of violence may emerge between spouses when drug users take money from the

spouse; further, arguments between spouses about money could lead to violent altercations. Systemic violence refers to the traditionally aggressive

patterns of interaction within the system of drug distribution and use. Examples are punishment for selling adulterated or phony drugs or elimination

of informers. Domestic violence may be categorized as systemic violence

in a limited fashion; for example, if a man discovers that his spouse has

acted as an informer, he may pursue violence to enforce and protect his

operations.

While Goldstein’s tripartite conceptual framework offers some explanation

of violence that could describe spousal violence, his conceptual framework

was not derived from domestic violence encounters. Rather, it was derived

from accounts of violence perpetrated by drug users, and there was not a

systematic attempt to identify domestic violence scenarios. Additional components may need to be added to this conceptual model to explain the violent familial interactions or childhood sexual abuse that are related to drug

abuse, alcohol abuse, or both. Explanations for the relationships between

alcohol use and family violence include the perspective that heavy alcohol

use precedes family violence as a means of excusing or rationalizing the

violent behavior. Coleman and Straus (1983) argue that violence is excused

and forgiven because of drinking and this behavior would not be tolerated

without the drinking. This same learning model may apply to drug use and

family violence. Thus, an individual who wishes to express violence toward

another individual may perceive that being “high” on drugs will excuse the

behavior in the eyes of family, friends, and possibly even the victim.

Violence directed toward drug-using women may also be explained by our

normative expectations of what is appropriate behavior for women. Women

with alcohol or drug problems may be at a higher risk of spousal violence

because they are viewed by their partners as acting inappropriately. Kagle

(1987) has noted that a drunken man is viewed as funny, while a drunken

woman is viewed as obnoxious or unfeminine. Characterization of female

drug users by both males and females in the drug world are typically more

negative and demeaning for women. In a study of incarcerated male and

female drug users, women were described as the lowest of the low:

“Broads on dope get radical, sleezy, snakey” (Fox et al. 1977, Appendix B).

179
Sandmaier (1980) contended that when women drink, they have a tendency

to become more verbally aggressive. This aggression violates the gender

role norms. Thus, it may be perceived as more acceptable for a man to hit

a woman who is not behaving in an acceptable feminine role. Further,

women who are drug abusers are frequently prostitutes (Miller 1980, Goldstein 1979, Rosenbaum 1981). This role may result in further conflicts

about the appropriate behaviors for women in the drug scene.

The majority of previous investigations have focused on the batterer’s use

of substances (Eberle 1982; Frieze and Knoble 1980; Gelles 1972; Get-son

1978). The victim’s alcohol or drug problems also need to be considered

in assessing violence between couples. Kantor and Straus (1989) reported

that 46 percent of the severely assaulted women in their sample were drunk

one or more times during the survey year, contrasted with 36 percent of the

minor violence victims and 16 percent of the nonvictimized women. Similar relationships between the victim’s use of drugs and spousal violence

have been found. In a study of drug users and distributors in New York

City, Goldstein et al. (1988) found that 20 percent of the female regular

cocaine users and 31 percent of the moderate cocaine users experienced

violence from a spouse or lover. In contrast, only 2 percent of the male

regular cocaine users had experienced violence from a spouse or lover,

while 7 percent of the male moderate users had experienced such violence.

This suggests that female drug users may be at greater risk for spousal

violence than male drug users. Alcohol or drug use of the victim has not

only been associated with a greater risk of spousal violence occurring, but

also with a greater risk of frequency and duration of abuse and a greater

risk of serious injury (Fagan and Wexler 1985).

Further complicating the interrelationships between spousal violence and the

perpetrator’s and victim’s abuse of alcohol and drugs have been fmdings

that indicate women who report heavy drinking patterns were in relationships with men who also abused alcohol (Walker 1983). Thus, the examination of the interrelationships between spousal violence and alcohol and

drug abuse should, whenever feasible, include both victim and perpetrator’s

substance use.

Study I: Comparison of Alcoholic Women and a Random Sample

of Women

In our first study to teat the relationships between spousal violence and

alcohol abuse, the focus was on whether spousal violence relates to the

development of women’s alcohol problems. To explore this question, we

compared levels of spousal violence for a sample of women alcoholics with

a random sample of women in the community.

Methodology. The methodology for this study has been described in detail

in Miller et al. (1989). Briefly, samples of 45 alcoholic women and 40

180
women from a random sample of women in the community were obtained

for interviews. Alcoholic women were identified through women’s treatment groups at alcoholism outpatient treatment agencies and by using a

snowball sample obtained through Alcoholic Anonymous (AA) groups. The

comparison group was identified through random digit dialing. Interviews

were conducted from January until June 1986. Interviews lasted approximately 2 hours.

Adult alcohol use was measured both by questions on quantity and frequency of use and the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (Selzer 1971).

These measures allowed us to insure that alcoholic women were not included in the random sample. The Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) was used

to measure spouse-to-woman violence (Straus 1979; Straus et al. 1980).

Negative verbal, moderate, and severe violence indices were formed from

the specific items, following definitions by Straus et al. (1980) and Kantor

and Straus (1989). These indices were modified to add two items to the

negative verbal subscale, “insulted or swore at you in a sexual manner” and

“threatened to abandon you,” and one item to the serious violence subscale,

“threatened your life in some manner.” For the purposes of these analyses,

each CTS item was dichotomized into “never happened” (code=0) and “happened at least once” (code=1). One point was scored for each CTS item

that happened at least once. The subscales on moderate and severe violence

consisted of six items each.

Interrelationships Between Spousal Violence and Women’s Alcohol

Problems. Alcoholic women were significantly more likely to report higher

levels of conflict with spouses as measured by the negative verbal 4.67

vs. 2.62, p<.0001), moderate 2.47 vs. 0.64, p<.0001), and serious violence =1.29 vs. 0.26, p<.01) subscales from the Conflict Tactics Scale

(Miller et al. 1989). Virtually all of the individual items that comprise the

negative verbal, moderate violence, and serious violence indices were reported by significantly more alcoholic women as compared to the household

women.

To determine whether the level of spousal violence differentiated between

the two groups when controlling for other variables that were statistically

different between the two groups (i.e., demographics, changes in parental

family, income index) and that were conceptually important (i.e., parental

alcohol problems, father-to-daughter violence scores, spouse alcohol problems), a hierarchical regression analysis was completed. Since spousal violence was entered last, the increase in R

2 was a conservative estimate of the

contribution of spousal violence. Once age was controlled, the strongest

predictor of sample type was the spouse-to-woman CTS score (table 1).

Age and spousal violence were the only two significant predictors for the

equation. Following the entry of all other variables, spousal violence still

contributed 6 percent to the total explained variance. The adjusted R

2

(.53)

181
indicates that the variables are powerful predictors of the differences

between the two groups.

TABLE 1. Role of spousal violence controlling for childhood and present

family variables in predicting type of sample

Independent Variables B* Beta** p (1-tailed) R

2†

Present Age .02 .36 <.0001 .24

Parent Alcohol Problems .12 .12 .1211 .36

Father Violence Index .01 .11 .1089 .41

Changes in Parental Family .05 .14 .0599 .44

Spouse Alcohol Problems .17 .16 .0601 .51

Income Index .03 .07 .2412 .53

Spouse Violence Index .03 .29 .0036 .59

*The unstandardized regression coefficient is multiplied times the variable score to predict the dependent

variable.

**The standardized regression coefficient allows comparisons between variables with higher coefficient

values, signifying greater importance in predicting the dependent variable.

†Adjusted R

2

=553. The R

2

 represents the proportion of the variance explained by the variable in combination with the preceding variables.

SOURCE: Miller et al. 1989, copyright 1989. Alcohol Research Documentation.

While this study demonstrates a relationship between spousal violence and

alcoholic women, we were unable to determine causality. That is, spousal

violence may have led to alcohol problems in women, or women with alcohol problems may have been more vulnerable to spousal violence.

Study II: Interrelationships Between Spousal Violence and Alcohol and

Drug Abuse for Parolees and Their Spouses

In our second study, the relationship between spousal violence and alcohol

and drug use was explored for both perpetrators and victims. Our first

question was whether spousal violence was linked to the perpetrator’s alcohol or drug problems. A second question was whether spousal violence

was linked to the victim’s alcohol or drug problems. Data were obtained

from both parolees and their spouses. In this study, we were able to obtain

information from both parolees and their spouses, and thus have information

regarding spousal violence incidents from two perspectives.

Methodology. These analyses were based upon data collected for a larger

study on the interrelationships between alcohol, drugs, criminal violence,

182
and domestic violence across three generations (Blane et al. 1988). The

subjects were selected from all male parolees in Western New York during

January through June of 1987, who were living in the Greater Buffalo area

and were convicted of nonviolent and violent offenses. Subjects were contacted by research staff when they reported to their parole officer and by

telephone calls and letters (for infrequent reporters). All available parolees

meeting these criteria were approached.3 A subsample of the larger study

was used for the present analyses, consisting of 82 parolees and their

spouses or partners. Further details on the methodology are available in

Miller et al. (1990).

Subjects with drinking problems were asked questions from the alcoholism

section of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS) (Robins et al. 1981).

The total number of lifetime drinking problems was used as the indicator of

the seriousness of alcohol problems for the parolee and spouse with one or

fewer alcohol problems considered low. Drug abuse was measured using

questions derived from the Survey of Inmates of State Correctional Facilities, 1979 (Bureau of Justice Statistics 1981). Questions determined the

number of different types of illegal drugs used (heroin, barbiturates, amphetamines, marijuana, cocaine, LSD, PCP, and other hallucinogens) and the

frequency of usage over the lifetime. The number of different drugs used

on a regular basis formed the drug problems index. Regular drug use was

defined as weekly use of a substance for at least 1 month, with the exception of marijuana, for which daily use for a month was required to characterize the pattern as regular. The sample was then categorized as either

having some regular drug abuse or no regular drug abuse.’

Parolees and their spouses completed a revised version of the CTS (Straus

and Gelles 1986, Kantor and Straus 1989).5 Each respondent was asked to

report specific acts of moderate and severe physical violence that they had

perpetrated or experienced within the past 3 months. To estimate violence

not dependent on agreement between the couple, a couple-report variable

was created. For instance, the couple report for parolee violence was

formed by assessing whether either the parolee or the spouse reported any

male violence. The couple report for spouse violence was formed in the

same way.

Our sample of 82 male parolees and their spouses indicated high rates of

alcohol and drug problems. Alcohol problems were present in 76 percent

of the parolees and 56 percent of the spouses. Seventy-three percent of the

parolees and 40 percent of the spouses reported using some type of illegal

drug on a regular basis. Rates of spousal violence were also high for this

sample. During the 3 months preceding the interview, 78 percent of the

parolees and 72 percent of the spouses perpetrated moderate violence;

33 percent of the parolees and 39 percent of the spouses perpetrated severe

violence.

183
Effect of Perpetrator’s Alcohol and Drug Problems on Spousal Violence. The first research question concerned whether the perpetrator’s

(parolee’s) alcohol or drug problems increased the level of spousal violence

that was experienced by the spouse. Examining the contribution of the

parolees’ alcohol and drug problems to the parolees’ violence to his spouse

revealed that neither his drug abuse nor his alcohol problems independently

contributed significantly to the degree of violence but that the interaction

effect, alcohol by drugs, contributed significantly to the level of parolee-to

spouse violence. The interaction effect is depicted in figure 1. The

presence of parolee alcohol problems was related to the degree of paroleeto-spouse violence when there were no parolee drug problems. When the

parolee had drug problems, his alcohol problems had no impact on paroleeto-spouse violence.

FIGURE 1. Parolee-to-spouse violence by parolee alcohol and drug abuse

SOURCE: Miller et al. 1990, copyright 1990, Haworth Press.

Given the potentially different psychopharmacological effects that drugs may

have, we hypothesized that combining all drugs under one drug problem

score might diminish the importance of individual types of drugs to spousal

violence. For three drug categories (barbiturate, cocaine, marijuana) there

were sufficient numbers of identified abusers to allow separate regression

analyses following the procedures outlined for all drugs. Again, there were

no main effects for specific drugs or for alcohol on the degree of spousal

184
violence. (Although the analyses were performed separately for each drug,

many of the same individuals used two or more of the drugs, thus we do

not have entirely independent analyses). Nonetheless, interaction effects

were apparent. Both regular barbiturate use with alcohol problems and

regular marijuana use with alcohol problems produced significant interaction

effects (figure 2). The interaction of cocaine use with alcohol problems

was statistically marginal. All three interactions indicate somewhat similar

patterns to the one shown for the comprehensive drug abuse by alcohol

problems interaction. That is, alcohol abuse increased the risk of paroleeto-spouse violence in the absence of drug abuse, but there was a tendency

for alcohol abuse to decrease violence when there was drug abuse. In addition, there were more violent activities (parolee-to-spouse) repotted for barbiturate and marijuana users, compared to cocaine users. Previous research

has suggested that barbiturate use is correlated with assaultive behavior

(Enklenberg et al. 1974; Tinklenberg et al. 1976; Tinklenberg et al. 1981;

Collins 1982). Considering the popular notion that cocaine use increases

the violence rate, there was an expectation that cocaine users would have an

elevated level of violence or a level of violence at least similar to that for

FIGURE 2. Parolee-to-spouse violence by parolee alcohol problems and

parolee use of specific drugs

185
alcohol abusers only. Crack use was not separated for these analyses from

cocaine because of the relatively low levels of crack use at the time of the

data collection.

Effect of Victim’s Alcohol and Drug Abuse on Spousal Violence. To

explore whether the victim’s alcohol and drug abuse affected the level of

spousal violence experienced, when controlling for the perpetrator’s alcohol

and drug problems, regression analyses were completed. Initially, the regression analyses included both his and her alcohol problems and revealed

no significant main effects on parolee-to-spouse violence. The addition of

the interaction of parolee alcohol problems by spouse alcohol problems was

significant, however. As figure 3 indicates, there was more violence initiated by the parolee in couples in which either or both of the individuals in

the relationship experienced high levels of alcohol problems than when both

had low levels of alcohol problems. Thus, the existence of high levels of

alcohol problems in the relationship for either member of the couple appeared to be an important contributor to parolee-initiated violence, but the

presence of problems in both members of the couple did not necessarily inflate the level of violence any more than if only one member had reported

high levels of alcohol problems.

FIGURE 3. Parolee-to-spouse violence by parolee and spouse alcohol

problems

SOURCE: Miller et al. 1990, copyright 1990, Haworth Press.

186
Neither the main nor interaction effects of parolee and spouse drug abuse

contributed significantly to the equation for predicting his violence to her.

Summary

Our studies have provided evidence that the victim’s alcohol problems are

related to their experiences of spousal violence. In our first study, women

alcoholics were much more likely than a random sample to experience

spousal violence. In our second study, the interaction effects suggest that

alcohol problems in women contribute to the level of spousal violence

women experience. To date, we have not found a positive relationship between the victim’s drug abuse and experiences of spousal violence. However, further studies are being conducted to explore this relationship.

In addition, these studies provide evidence that the alcohol and drug problems of the perpetrator are related to the level of violence experienced by

the victim. Data from our second study revealed that the relationships between alcohol and drug problems and spousal violence are not simple relationships. The interactions of drug and alcohol problems and the interaction

of victim’s and perpetrator’s alcohol problems were aitical to understanding

these interrelationships. When parolees reported no drug problems, alcohol

problems increased the level of violence. However, alcohol problems did

not increase the level of violence when the parolee had drug problems.

One possible explanation is that drug use may have ameliorated the violence

that was associated with alcohol problems. While intentional self-medication for violent tendencies has not been well documented in the literature,

this is a possibility. The psychopharmacologic effects of marijuana and

heroin, for instance, have been attributed to “mellowing out” or causing

individuals to “nod out,” conditions that are likely to ameliorate violent

tendencies.

Combined alcohol and drug abuse may produce a situation in which the

individual is incapable of responding aggressively. Coleman and Straus

(1979) reported a decline in domestic violence among men who were almost

always drunk, possibly for a similar reason. Additionally, the spouse of a

combined alcohol-and-drug abuser may avoid any confrontations or conflicts,

since any productive communication may be futile, thereby reducing the opportunity for domestic violence. Other variables not collected in this study

should also be considered. The context in which the drugs were taken

might have offered further insight into these relationships. Perhaps there

was more likely to be concomitant alcohol use between parolees and spouses than concomitant drug use, which again might have affected the outcome

of the behavior.

Alcohol problems within couples may increase stress levels within the

family. Lifetime alcohol problems may reflect the higher probability that

most interactions between the members of the couple are likely to occur

187
with heavy alcohol consumption or intoxication. Intoxication has been

hypothesized to affect marital interactions in such a way as to produce

intense conflict, thereby increasing the likelihood of violence (Leonard and

Jacob 1988).

Much of the existing literature has suggested that perpetrators’ alcohol problems may explain victims’ experiences of violence. Our findings suggest a

more complex relationship; victims’ drinking is linked to their experiences

of violence. What is still unclear is the temporal order between these

events. There is some indication that victims’ alcoholism leads to spousal

violence. According to Sandmaier (1980), alcoholic women are labeled

more negatively than nonalcoholic women and men and even alcoholic men,

including a variety of labels that denote or connote “sexual looseness.”

This negative labeling may directly affect negative verbal interactions (including sexual and other insults) directed at them by the spouse and may

indirectly increase spousal violence directed at alcoholic women. Violence

may be perceived as more socially acceptable when directed at negatively

labeled women and drinking may reinforce this negative label.

Further research is needed into the effect of women’s drug use on spousal

violence. Our sample of spouses did not have sufficient numbers of women

using drugs to test the effect of their drug use on spousal violence. Studies

are planned with a sample of drug-abusing women to explore these relationships further. Additional studies on alcoholic women are being conducted

to determine whether there are differences in levels of spousal violence that

occur following the woman’s alcohol and drug problems as opposed to

levels of family violence that occur in the absence of any alcohol or drug

problems for the women. Finally, additional studies are needed to explore

anomalous effects of drugs on certain people. It may be that the usual

reaction to a specific drug does not increase or decrease violent tendencies,

but certain individuals behave very atypically.

INTERRELATIONSHIPS OF CHILD ABUSE AND ALCOHOL AND

DRUG PROBLEMS

Review of the Literature

Few studies provide any information concerning connections between alcohol and drug abuse and the perpetration of child abuse. In a typology of

child abusers, one cluster that comprised about 13 percent of the sample

was defined by variables that included alcohol intoxication at the time of

the abuse (Gil 1971). However, the importance of alcohol problems to the

perpetration of child abuse is stilI not clear (Black and Mayer 1980, Herman and Hirschman 1981; Smith et al. 1973). In their review of the literature, Leonard and Jacob (1988) suggest that if the perpetrator’s alcohol

abuse is important to understanding child abuse, it is true for subgroups

of abusers rather than a characteristic of most abusers. However, few

188
methodologically sound research studies exist on the alcohol and drug abuse

of the perpetrators of child abuse. More recently, there has been increased

social and legal interest in the alcohol and drug use of the pregnant woman.

Her substance use is perceived as a type of child abuse and neglect. However, less concern has been focused on the alcohol and drug problems of

the chronic child abusers whose victims are children already born.

While there is less emphasis on the immediate interrelationships between

alcohol and drug problems and the perpetration of child abuse, there has

been increasing evidence that there are long-term effects of parental violence on the victim, including the development of alcohol and drug problems. Child abuse has been associated with the development of illicit drug

abuse (Dembo et al. 1988; Dembo et al. 1987; Geller and Ford-Somma

1984), adult alcoholism (Holmes and Robins 1988), juvenile delinquency

(Bolton and Reich 1977; Brown 1982), and adult criminality (Kroll et al.

1985; McCord 1983; Singer 1986). Retrospective accounts of childhood

experiences have found that alcoholic and drug-abusing women were more

likely to report both physical and emotional abuse during childhood than

women who are neither alcoholics nor drug abusers (Covington 1983;

Cohen and Densen-Gerber 1982).

In examining the mechanisms by which child abuse may lead to the development of alcohol and drug problems, negative emotional states that are

introduced by the experiences of child abuse may be a critical intervening

factor. Dembo and associates (1987; Dembo et al. 1988) report that physical and sexual abuse of juvenile delinquents lead to drug use via lowered

self-esteem. Further, sexual and physical abuse predicted drug use among

juvenile delinquents (Dembo et al. 1987; Dembo et al. 1988). Other studies

have reported that negative feelings toward the self are related to experienced child abuse (Oates et al. 1985). Drinking for relief of generalized

unpleasant feelings has been associated with problem drinking (Fillmore

1974; Fillmore 1975). Zucker and Devoe (1975) found that adolescent female problem drinkers described their parents as arbitrary in discipline and

reported more distress than boys over parent-child problems. The presence

of these feelings may result in problem drinking during adolescence and set

the stage for alcoholism in adulthood.

Study I: Comparison Study of Alcoholic Women and General Population of Women

In the first study, the role of child abuse in the development of alcohol

problems in women was explored by comparing experiences of moderate

and severe violence for a sample of women alcoholics with experiences of a

random sample of women in the community.

Methods. Methods for this study were described earlier. The CTS described earlier for spousal violence was employed for assessing parent-tochild relationships. Since parental alcohol problems could be a confounding

189
variable in assessing the interrelationships between child abuse and the development of alcohol problems in women, we also obtained measures of

parental alcohol problems. Parental alcohol problems were assessed by asking the women whether they thought either parent had a problem with altohol. If they indicated that they did have a problem, they were asked to

describe behaviors that led to that conclusion.

Effect of Parental Violence on Women’s Alcohol Problems. Our alcoholic sample reported significantly different levels of father-to-daughter

interaction than the random sample. Specifically, a lower level of father-todaughter positive verbal interaction 131 vs. 1.81, p<.05) and higher

levels of negative verbal interactions 2.86 vs. 1.46, p<.01), of moderate

violence 2.88 vs. 1.54, p<.001), and of serious violence 1.21 vs. 0.32,

p<.01) were reported by the alcoholic sample, compared to the random sample (Downs et al. 1987). None of the mother-todaughter interaction subscales were significantly different across sample type, suggesting that the

experiences of father-to-daughter violence were more important to the development of alcohol problems among women.

The interrelationships between child abuse by the father and the development of alcoholism were also examined while controlling for other variables

of conceptual or statistical significance between the two groups: number of

changes in family structure during childhood, parental alcohol problems,

present income source, and present age. Multiple regression analyses revealed that higher levels of negative verbal interactions and higher levels of

moderate and serious violence were all predictive of being in the alcoholic

group (table 2). In the final analysis, the levels of father-to-daughter violence were as important to predicting group membership as were parental

alcoholism and number of changes in family structure. This suggests that

experiences of child abuse may be as important to the development of alcohol problems in women as is the parental alcoholism link that has received

so much research and popular attention. The R

2

, adjusted for sample size,

was approximately .40 in each equation, indicating that the five independent

variables were powerful in predicting membership in the alcoholic sample.

Study II: Parolee and Spouse Study

In the parolee study, the effect of parental alcohol abuse on child abuse

experienced by the parolee was examined. In addition, the effect of the

parolee’s alcohol and drug problems and his spouse’s alcohol and drug

problems on their willingness to use physical violence with their own

children was assessed.

Methods. The methods for this study were outlined previously. The same

CTS was used to assess the parolees’ experiences of father-to-parolee and

mother-to-parolee violence during childhood. The entire sample of parolees

was asked these questions and the analyses on these variables were completed for 179 subjects.

190
TABLE 2. Multiple regression of type of sample on fater-to-daughter

conflict tactics subscales

Independent Variables B Beta p (1-tailed)

Regression with Negative Verbal Interaction*

Negative Verbal Interaction .048 .20

Changes in Family Structure .062 .17

Parental Alcoholism .210 .21

Present Income Source .259 .23

Present Age .019 .34

Regression with Moderate Violence**

Moderate Violence .051 .19

Changes in Family Structure. .061 .17

Parental Alcoholism .218 .22

Present Income Source .276 .25

Present Age .018 .33

Regression with Serious Violence***

Serious Violence .063 .17

Changes in Family Structure .056 .16

Parental Alcoholism .213 .21

Present Income Source .273 .24

Present Age .019 .35

.020

.033

.022

.007

.001

.024

.036

.017

.004

.001

.040

.051

.021

.005

.001

*Adjusted R

2

 for equation=.40.

**Adjusted R2 for eqation=.39.

***Adjusted R

2

 for cquation=.39.

SOURCE: Miller et al. 1987, copyright 1987. Springer Publishing Co.

For reports on the parolees’ and spouses’ disciplinary styles toward their

own children, analyses were completed only for the 42 couples (parolees

and their spouses) who were currently living with their children. Twentyone different hypothetical situations of a child’s misbehavior were posed,

and parents were asked how they might discipline their children. A target

child (oldest child between 5 and 14 years of age) was used with each

parolee and spouse. This assessment of parental punishment styles was a

revised version of the parental punitiveness scale (Epstein and Komorita

1965). Thus, the scale does not provide an assessment of actual parental

abuse but the willingness to endorse punishment styles that reflect severe

violence. Two measures from this scale were important to these analyses.

191
The first measure assessed willingness to use severe physical punishment,

specifically: “spank with belt or switch” and “hit with fist.” Across the 21

items, counts were made of the number of times the subject indicated he or

she would use either of these two severe punishments. This normative

acceptance of severe physical punishment was viewed as a risk factor in

violence toward children. The second measure examined for these analyses

was the number of times the parent expressed the willingness to do nothing

for the 21 hypothetical situations. The more an individual endorsed this

response across behavior patterns, the more suggestive that the parent was

uninvolved in providing any discipline for the child.

Effect of Perpetrator’s Alcohol and Drug Problems on Child Abuse.

First, the interrelationships between parental alcohol abuse and child abuse

directed towards the parolee were examined. Since less than 10 percent of

the parolees reported parents with drug abuse problems, it was impossible to

analyze the effect of drug abuse on child abuse experiences of the parolees.

Alcohol problems in the father significantly increased the father-to-parolee

violence, accounting for an approximate increase in the explained variance

of 9 percent (table 3). Alcohol problems in the mother contributed a small

but statistically significant proportion of the total variance explained (less

than 4 percent) in mother-to-parolee violence (table 4). This result is similar to the effect found for the father-to-parolee violence: the more alcohol

problems the mother had, the more violence she directed towards the

parolee.

TABLE 3. Results from regression analysis of parental alcohol problems

on father-to-parolee violence

Variable

Multiple Increment Entry

R R

2 Beta Weight**

Demographics .1352 .0183

Age .032

Race .135

Parental Alcohol Problems

Mother

Father

*p<.005.

.3295 .0903*

.0001 -.008

.0890* .307*

**Entry Beta weight is the standardized regression coefficient representing the contribution of the

variable at time of entry into equation.

NOTE: Overall equation: R=.3295; R

2

=.1086, adjusted R

2

=.0856; F(4,155)=4.72, p<.005.

The effect of parolees’ and spouses’ alcohol and drug problems on their

willingness to use disciplinary measures that involved physical violence

192
TABLE 4. Results from regression analysis of parental alcohol problems

on mother-to-parolee violence

Variable

Multiple Increment Entry

R R

2 Beta Weight

Demographics .0395 .0016

Age .000

Race -.039

Parental Alcohol Problems .2425 .0572*

Mother .0355* .192*

Father .0140 .122

*p<.05

NOTE: Comprehensive equation: R=.2425; R

2

=0588; adjusted R

2

=0345; F(4,155)=2.42 p<.06.

was assessed. These relationships were examined with hierarchical regression analyses. However, given the relatively few subjects available for

these analyses (n=42), variables were discarded from the analysis at the

point of entry if they did not significantly relate to the criterion variable.

Sociodemographic factors were initially entered into the regression equation.

Subsequently, a composite measure of parolee-to-spouse and spouse-toparolee violence was entered.6 Given the relationships found for the violence between the parolee’s parents and the violence toward the parolee, the

expectations were that high rates of violence between the couple would be

related to more severe methods of punishment toward the child. Following

the spousal violence index, the criminal violence measures were entered.

Again, one might expect that high rates of violence in the criminal area

might lead to greater violence being displayed toward the child. Following

criminal violence, lifetime alcohol problems and drug abuse measures were

entered. Current measures of alcohol and drug abuse problems for the

spouse were unfortunately unavailable. However, separate analyses conducted for the parolees’ lifetime and current alcohol and drug problems showed

no differences in patterns for the relationships being tested. Finally, the

parental factors were entered.

The potential for severe punishment from the parolee and from the spouse

were moderately related (r=.293, p<.04). While this relationship indicates

some agreement with regard to the acceptance of serious physical punishment between the parents, it also indicates that the level of agreement was

not particularly high and that the punitive styles of the parents were, to

some degree, independent.

The demographic factors contributed significantly to the variance in severe

parolee punitiveness. This was due mainly to race and age. Black parolees

193
were more likely than white or other parolees to endorse the use of severe

punishment on children living in their home. Likewise, the potential for

use of severe punishment by the younger parolees was greater than it was

for the older parolees. The demographics accounted for 12 percent of the

variance in parolee punitiveness after adjusting for shrinkage. Spousal violence, criminal violence., alcohol and drug abuse, as well as current parentto-parent and retrospective parent-to-child violence did not contribute to the

prediction of parolee-to-child punitiveness.

In contrast, spouses’ drug abuse was related to the potential use of severe

spouse-to-child punishment, accounting for almost 8 percent increase in R

2

(table 5). However, the direction of the relationship is opposite of what

might be expeded. Spouses that abused drugs were less willing to endorse

severe punishment than those spouses that did not abuse drugs. Race again

significantly contributed to the R

2

, with the potential of blacks using severe

punishment across more situations being greater than that for whites or

others. The resulting comprehensive equation accounted for 28 percent of

the variance. One interacton that was close to significance (p=.06) was

spouse’s violent criminal history by spouse’s alcohol problems. Although

alcohol problems tended to decrease the willingness to endorse severe

physical punishment regardless of criminal history for violent offenses,

spouses with a criminal history and alcohol problems showed the lowest

rates of endorsement for severe physical punishment.

TABLE 5. Regression analysis for spouse severe punishment

Variable

Multiple Increment Entry

R in R

2 Beta Weight

Demographics .5228 .2733*

Age of Spouse -.2522

Race -.4166*

Socioeconomic Status .0701

Spouse

Drug Abuse .5923 .0775** -.3335**

*p<.01.

**p<.05.

NOTE: Comprehensive equation: Multiple R=.5923; R

2

=.3508; adjusted R

2

=.2806; F(4,37)=4.99.

p<.005.

To better understand these interrelationships, a second measure of parental

willingness to endorse no parental reaction was analyzed. Although the

women’s (spouses’) willingness to endorse physical violence toward their

194
children was inversely related to their alcohol and drug problems, the

women’s willingness to endorse a “do nothing” response to various child

misbehavior was positively related to high levels of alcohol and drug problems. Women who had higher levels of both alcohol and drug problems reported the greatest number of situations in which they would do nothing in

response to a child’s misbehavior. While this is only one measure of neglecting to perform parental duties, the data suggest that for women in our

study, alcohol and drug problems were more closely linked to their failure

to perform parental duties than to their willingness to endorse severe violence as appropriate parental punishment.

Summary

Based upon the two studies presented, experiences of child abuse are related

to the development of alcohol problems. For our sample of female alcoholics, only the father-to-daughter violence was significant. However, the

parolee sample revealed that both mother- and father-to-parolee violence

was important.

Our data on the importance of parental alcohol and drug problems to the

willingness to use parental violence toward children was less clear. Based

on hypothetical punishment responses to a set of child misbehaviors, there

did not appear to be a positive relationship between parental alcohol and

drug problems and the willingness to use parental violence. In fact, there

was some evidence that women who abused alcohol and drugs were less

likely to endorse severe violence as a form of parental discipline. These

findings should be viewed with caution, however, Attempts to assess the

current levels of violence to their children for the parolee sample was

hampered by the small numbers of parolees living with children (n=42).

Further, the measure of child abuse was considerably different in that

responses to hypothetical situations were measured. There was no attempt

to assess actual behaviors that had occurred. Measures for lifetime alcohol

and drug problems were used rather than current alcohol and drug problems.

Because of interview time constraints, only parolees were asked about current drug and alcohol problems. Although no differences were noted in the

relationships between current alcohol and drug problems and punishment

styles vs. the relationships between lifetime alcohol and drug problems and

punishment styles for the parolees, there may have been differences in punishment styles for current vs. lifetime drug problems for women. Still

another complication is that many of the parolees were living with children

who were not their own. Finally, the small number of female drug abusers

suggests the importance of replicating these findings.

Further research is needed to assess the relationship of drug abuse to child

abuse. Current media attention has been given to the growing numbers of

legal cases that are arising from mothers who use drugs while pregnant.

195
Although this is an important concern, additional research is needed on the

effect of drug abuse on parental care after the children are born. Given the

findings that parental alcohol abuse increased the level of violence to children and that child abuse is related to the development of alcohol problems,

this same intergenerational phenomenon needs to be explored further for

drug abuse.

INTERRELATIONSHIPS OF CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE AND

ALCOHOL AND DRUG PROBLEMS

Review of the Literature

Relatively little information exists to support the notion that perpetrators of

childhood sexual abuse are alcohol or drug abusers. A few studies have

investigated incestuous fathers and found that a proportion (ranging from 20

to 50 percent) are alcoholic or heavy drinkers (Gebhard et al. 1965;

Meiselman 1978; Virkkunen 1974). However, studies of other perpetrators

and their alcohol and drug problems are rare.

Considerably more information exists to suggest that experiences of childhood sexual abuse lead to alcohol and drug abuse for the victims. There

are a wide range of undesirable effects from experiences of childhood

sexual abuse; the development of alcohol and drug problems has been identified as a possible consequence (Browne and Finkelhor 1986; Herman

1981; Rohsenow et al. 1986). As mentioned previously, Dembo and associates (1988) found that sexual abuse predicted drug use among juvenile delinquents. Briere and Runtz (1988) reported that prior sexual abuse was

associated with greater likelihood of drug and alcohol abuse, as well as various other negative, psychological outcomes. Singer et al. (1989) compared

psychiatric patients with and without sexual abuse histories and found that

abused subjects used alcohol and drugs more and reported more drunkenness than those without an abuse history. An exception to this pattern was

a study by Goldston et al. (1989), which compared sexually abused and

nonabused girls in psychiatric facilities and found no differences in alcohol

abuse and more drug abuse among nonabused girls.

Although the literature on alcohol and drug problems of women does not

address the mechanisms that may link childhood sexual abuse to the development of these problems, the antecedents to alcohol and drug problems are

similar to consequences of childhood sexual abuse. In her longitudinal

study of alcoholic women, Jones (1971) reports that social isolation and

emotional disturbances were more characteristic of adolescents who later

developed alcohol problems than of adolescents who did not. There are

indications that emotional disturbances and social isolation are consequences

of sexual abuse experiences (Browne and Finkelhor 1986). Distorted selfimage and low self-esteem have been found among some women alcoholics

(Kinsey 1968; Wood and Duffy 1966). Likewise, initial and long-term

196
effects of childhood sexual abuse include negative emotional reactions and

negative self-perceptions (Browne and Finkelhor 1986).

Theoretical explanations for why experiences of childhood sexual abuse

could lead to alcohol and drug problems have not been well developed.

Sexual abuse events that involve violent coercion may lead to extremely

unpleasant memories that a woman wants to repress. Heavy drinking and

drug abuse may offer a chemically induced mechanism for forgetting. Both

alcoholic and drug-abusing women have reported using for escapist reasons

(Beckman 1980; Miller 1980).

Another mechanism by which sexual abuse events may lead to drug and

alcohol abuse is that experiences of sexual abuse have been suggested to

lead to negative self-concept and self-imaging (Browne and Finkelhor 1986).

These negative emotions toward self may lead to depression and anxiety.

Numerous studies have found evidence of depression in alcoholic women

(Schuckit 1973; Schuckit et al. 1969). Further, relief of unpleasant feelings

has been cited as a reason for drinking among female problem drinkers

(Edwards et al. 1973; Fillmore 1974; Fillmore 1975; Beckman 1980;

Lisansky-Gomberg and Lisansky 1984). In cases in which depression and

anxiety begin in childhood following sexual abuse, the development of patterns of drinking may be established as a means to cope with these feelings.

Still another link between childhood sexual abuse and the development of

alcohol and drug problems is that some children report feeling different

from other children as a result of their sexual abuse experiences (Herman

1981). This may lead childhood sexual abuse victims to seek identity and

membership in groups of adolescents who are more deviant and for whom

drug and alcohol use is viewed as more normative. Early patterns of heavy

drinking and drug use can then lead to alcohol and drug-related problems.

Comparison Study of Alcoholic Women and General Population of

Women

Data on childhood sexual abuse experiences were available only for the first

study, comparing alcoholic women and a random sample of women. The

focus was on the question of whether experiences of childhood sexual abuse

are related to the development of women’s alcohol problems.

Methods. Issues regarding sampling and measurement of relevant variables

were presented earlier except for the measurement of childhood sexual

abuse. Previous research has shown that multiple questions of a specific

nature produce more reports of sexual abuse than single, more general questions (Peters et al. 1986). Therefore, our questions on sexual abuse were

generated from the list of sexual abuse questions created by Finkelhor

(1979) and supplemented with questions developed by Sgroi (1982). Sexual

abuse was defined as both contact and noncontact experiences that occurred

197
prior to the age of 18. These questions included a range of interactions between an adult and a child. Specific sexual experiences included invitations

to do something sexual, sexually oriented touching, masturbation, oral sex,

digital penetration, and intercourse. Sexual experiences with peers (persons

who were less than 5 years older) or boyfriends who were not coercive or

threatening were excluded.

Effect of Childhood Sexual Abuse on Women’s Alcohol Problems.

Women in the alcoholic sample (67 percent) were significantly (p<.001)

more likely to have experienced sexual abuse, compared to the women in

the comparison group (28 percent) (Miller et al. 1987). The total number

of types of sexual abuse experiences reported by the alcoholic women were

significantly greater 4.4 vs. 0.9, p<.001) than for the comparison group.

Finally, for women with sexual abuse experiences, alcoholic women reported

the sexual abuse lasting significantly longer than the comparison group

(p=.02); the alcoholic women reported an average of more than 3 years as

compared to slightly less than 1 year for the comparison group. Nearly

two-thirds of the alcoholic women had sexual abuse incidents lasting 1 or

more years as compared to approximately one-fourth of the comparison

group.

To examine the relative contribution of childhood sexual abuse and parental

alcohol-related problems to predicting the development of alcoholism in

women, a discriminant function analysis was performed to determine the

effect of any sexual abuse experience in predicting membership in the alcoholic group. Given the disproportionate presence of a parent with alcoholrelated problems among alcoholic women, we controlled for the effects of

parental alcohol problems by entering this as an independent variable.

Other demographic variables that were significantly different between samples were entered as independent variables: current age, number of changes

in the family, and current source of income.

The presence of any sexual abuse experience significantly contributed to the

discrimination between groups (table 6), even when the presence of a parent

with alcohol-related problems, present income source, and current age were

in the equation. The standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients provide a measure of the relative contribution of each variable in the

discriminant function. Sexual abuse made nearly as strong a contribution to

the discriminant function score as did presence of a parent with an alcoholrelated problem. This suggests that both childhood sexual abuse and parental alcoholism are predictors of alcoholism in women.

Summary

Our study of alcoholic women and the general population sample of women

indicate that childhood sexual abuse is related to the development of alcohol

problems in women. Sexual abuse was found to discriminate as powerfully

198
TABLE 6. Discriminant function analysis: Prediction of group by age,

income, parental alcoholism sexual abuse

Standardized Canonical

Discriminant Function

Coefficients

Significance

of F

Current Age .53 .0014

Present Income Source .51 .0022

Parental Alcohol-Related Problems .47 .0073

sexual Abuse .40 .0217

NOTE: Canonical correlation=.67; Wilks’ Standardized canonical discrimination

function coefficients are interpreted similarly to Beta weights.

SOURCE: Miller et al. 1987, copyright 1987, Springer Publishing Co.

between the two groups as did alcohol-related problems of parents. Alcohol

abuse and sexual abuse are interrelated, and the intergenerational aspects of

these phenomena cannot be ignored. Parental alcoholism may set the stage

for sexual abuse through both environmental and psychological vulnerabilities, while, at the same time, women with sexual abuse experiences appear

to be more at risk for the development of alcohol problems. This then sets

the stage for the sexual abuse experiences of their own children (a third

generation). Further analyses are under way to determine how the experiences of sexual abuse set the stage for the development of alcohol problems

and to shape future research about relationships between childhood sexual

abuse and the development of drug abuse problems in women.

CONCLUSION

Relationships between family violence and alcohol and drug problems of the

perpetrator and the victim have not been the focus of much research in the

past. The two different studies discussed in this presentation initiate investigations into the complexities of these relationships, and there is some replication of findings. Roth studies found that experiences of child abuse are

related to the development of alcohol problems. Both studies also found

that experiences of spousal violence are linked to alcohol problems. One

study reported findings that further substantiate the connections between

family violence and alcohol and drug problems of perpetrators. Evidence

that childhood sexual abuse is related to the development of alcohol problems in women was demonstrated in one study.

The studies presented here represent beginning steps toward understanding

the relationships between family violence and alcohol and drug abuse problems. Information is still needed on how and why alcohol and drug

199
problems of perpetrators are related to the perpetration of family violence

and how and why victimization experiences can lead to the development of

alcohol and drug problems. Further study is needed to address whether the

experiences of family violence leading to drug and alcohol abuse are

uniquely different from experiences of family violence that lead to other

types of dysfunctional behavior. In addition, there is a need to understand

how some individuals are able to survive experiences of family violence

without the development of personal dysfunctions such as alcohol and drug

abuse.

Investigation of these relationships between family violence and drug and

alcohol problems are important to the development of public policies that

address the constellation of problems that many individuals face. Intervention services for women in alcohol and drug treatment programs could be

developed to incorporate approaches appropriate for victims of violence.

Existing community resources devoted to victims need to understand the

complex relationships family violence has with alcohol and drug problems.

For identified victims of family violence, programs and strategies might be

developed for these high-risk individuals for drug and alcohol abuse prevention programs. Research that addresses these issues can provide a focus to

bring together services that currently exist in separate spheres and encourage

communication on problems that coexist within an individual and their

family.

FOOTNOTES

Severe violence is defined by the following acts directed toward an

individual in the family: kicking, biting, punching, hitting or trying to

hit with object, beating, threatening with a gun or knife, and using a

gun or knife. Moderate violence is defined by the following acts directed toward an individual in the family: threatened to hit or throw something; threw, smashed, hit, or kicked something; threw something at

individual; pushed, grabbed, shoved, or slapped.

Definitions of childhood sexual abuse vary from study to study. Virtually all studies have some definition of who is defined as a perpetrator

with family member or an individual who is older than the victim by a

specified number of years being typically used to clarify this concept.

A list of sexual behaviors that the victim either did or was done to the

victim are typically given. Some studies limit the age range of the

victim, e.g., acts that occurred prior to 14 years of age. In part, this

age limitation is established to try to eliminate consensual boyfriendgirlfriend relationships that may characterize the teenage years. Finkelhor (1984; Finkelhor 1986) further clarify the definitions of childhood

sexual abuse.

200
We defined violent offenses to include crimes such as murder, manslaughter, robbery, arson, assault, rape, sodomy, sexual abuse, and

sexual assault. We defined nonviolent offenses to include crimes such

as burglary, grand larceny, petit larceny, forgery, car theft, and criminal

possession of stolen property. Some individuals’ most recent crime did

not clearly fit within the violent or nonviolent categories (youthful offender, driving while intoxicated, reckless endangerment, possession of a

weapon with no other associated offenses, possession or sale of illegal

drugs), and these individuals were excluded from our sample. From a

total sample of 526 parolees defined as eligible for the study, 1% participated in the study. An additional 195 individuals who were eligible

were unavailable for one of the following reasons: completed parole

prior to contact by research staff, in jail, absconded, did not have an

address or phone number, and were missed at parole office. A total of

1,356 parolees refused to participate by not appearing for appointment

or never responding to our letters or phone calls. Blane et al. (1988)

provide further information on the sampling design.

This variable provided interval data, increasing our power for detecting

differences, compared to a categorical variable on alcohol diagnosis that

was also available.

The present study used an updated version of the spouse form of the

CTS. A description of this updated version can be found in Kantor and

Straus (1989) and differs from the original spouse form of the CTS

(Straus et al. 1980) by the addition of “choked.” We added “burned or

scalded” to our spouse form, an item that Gelles and Straus (1985) have

recently added to their parent-to-child form only. In addition, we added

three items to our spouse form, independent of Straus et al. (1980) revisions. These items were: threatened to abandon you, threatened your

life in some manner, and forced sex.

This composite index was derived in the following way. If one of the

scales had 1 or 2 incidents indicated and the other had none, the index score was a 1. If both scales had 1 or 2 incidents indicated, the

index score was a 2, and if one scale indicated no violent incidents and

the other indicated 3 or more, the score was also a 2. If one scale indicated 1 or 2 incidents and the other indicated more than 2, the score

was a 3. Finally, if both scales indicated more than 2 incidents, the

score was a 4.

REFERENCES

Beckman, L.J. Perceived antecedents and effects of alcohol consumption in

women. J Stud Alcohol 41(5):518-530, 1980.

Black, R., and Mayer, J. Parents with special problems: Alcoholism and

opiate addiction. Child Abuse Negl 4:45-54, 1980.

201
Blane, H.T.; Miller, B.A.; Leonard, K.E.; Nochajski, T.H.; Bowers, P.M.;

and Gondoli, D. Intra- and Inter-Generational Aspects of Serious Domestic Violence and Alcohol and Drugs. (National Institute of Justice grant

number 86-IJ-CX-0035). Final report submitted to the National Institute

of Justice, December 1988.

Bolton, F.G., and Reid, J.W. Delinquency patterns in maltreated children

and siblings. Victimology 2(2):349-357, 1977.

Briere, J., and Runtz, M. Symptomatology associated with childhood sexual

victimization in a nonclinical adult sample. Child Abuse Negl 12:51-59,

1988.

Brown, S.E. An analysis of the relationship between child abuse and delinquency. Crime and Justice 5:47-51, 1982.

Browne, A., and Finkelbor, D. Impact of child sexual abuse: A review of

the research. Psychol Bull 99(l):66-77, 1986.

Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. Survey of Inmates

of State Correctional Facilities, 1979 [Machine-readable data file].

Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Census (producer). 2d ed. Ann Arbor,

MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (distributor), 1981.

Byles, J.A. Violence, alcohol problems and other problems in disintegrating

families. J Stud Alcohol 39:551-553, 1978.

Chimbos, P.D. Marital Violence: A Study of Interspousal Homicide. San

Francisco: R & E Research Associates, 1978.

Cohen, ES., and Densen-Gerber, J. A study of the relationship between

child abuse and drug addiction in 178 patients: Preliminary results.

Child Abuse Negl 6:383-387, 1982.

Coleman, D.H., and Straus, M.A. Alcohol abuse and family violence. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association,

Boston, 1979.

Coleman, D.H., and Straus, M.A. Alcohol abuse and family violence. In:

Gottheil, E.; Druley, K.A.; Skoloda, T.E.; and Waxman, H.M., eds.

Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Aggression. Springfield, IL: Charles C.

Thomas, 1983. pp. 104-124.

Collins, J.J. Drugs and violence: The relationship of selected psychoactive

substance use to assault and robbery. Presented at annual meeting of the

American Society of Criminology, November 1982.

Covington, S.S. Sexual experience, dysfunction, and abuse: A descriptive

study of alcoholic and nonalcoholic women. Dissertation, The Union for

Experimenting Colleges and Universities, Cincinnati, OH, 1983.

Dembo, R.; Dertke, M.; Border, S.; Washburn, M.; and Schmeidler, J. The

relationship between physical and sexual abuse and tobacco, alcohol, and

illicit drug use among youths in a juvenile detention center. Int J Addict

23:351-378, 1988.

Dembo, R.; Dertke, M.; LaVoie, L.; Borders, S.; Washburn, M.; and

Schmeidler, J. Physical abuse, sexual victimization and illicit drug use:

A structural analysis among high risk adolescents. J Adolesc 10:13-33,

1987.

202
Downs, W.R.; Miller, B.A.; and Gondoli, D.M. Childhood experiences of

parental physical violence for alcoholic women as compared with a randomly selected household sample. Violence and victims 2(4):225-240,

1987.

Eberle, P.A. Alcohol abusers and nonusers: A discriminant analysis of differences between two subgroups of batterers. J Health Soc Behav

23:260-271, 1982.

Edwards, G.; Hensman, C.; and Peto, J. A comparison of male and female

motivation for drinking. Int J Addict 8:577-587, 1973.

Epstein, R., and Komorita, S.S. The development of a scale of parental

punitiveness toward aggression. Child Dev 36:129-142, 1965.

Fagan, J.A.; Stewart, D.K.; and Hansen, K.V. Violent men or violent husbands? In: Finkelhor, D.; Gelles, R.J.; Hotaling, G.T.; and Straus, M.A.,

eds. The Dark Side of Families. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications,

1983. pp. 49-67.

Fagan, J., and Wexler, S. Complex behaviors and simple measures:

Understanding violence in families. Presented at the annual meeting of

the American society of Criminology. San Diego, CA, November 1985.

Fillmore, KM. Drinking and problem drinking in early adulthood and middle age. Q J Stud Alcohol 35:819-840, 1974.

Fillmore, K.M. Relationships between specific drinking problems in early

adulthood and middle age. J Stud Alcohol 36:882-907, 1975.

Finkelhor, D. Sexually Victimized Children. New York: The Free Press,

1979.

Finkelhor, D. Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research. New

York: Free Press, 1984.

Finkelhor, D. A Sourcebook on Child Sexual Abuse. Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage, 1986.

Fox, J.; Miller, B.A.; and Bullington, B. A Study of Drug and Alcohol

Abuse Problems in Pennsylvania’s Criminal Justice System, Vol. II.

Development of Early Identification Technique Final Report. Submitted

to the Pennsylvania Department of Justice, Bureau of Corrections, in conjunction with the Board of Probation and Parole and the Governor’s

Council on Drug and Alcohol Abuse, December 1977.

Frieze, I.H., and Knoble, J. The effects of alcohol on marital violence.

Presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Montreal, Canada, September 1980.

Gayford, J.J. Wife battering: A preliminary survey of 100 cases. Br Med

J 1:194-197, 1975.

Gebhard, P.H.; Gagnon, J.; Pomeroy, W.; and Christenson, C. Sex Offenders: An Analysis of Types. New York: Harper and Row, 1965.

Geller, M., and Ford-Somma, L. Violent Homes, Violent Children: A

Study of Violence in the Families of Juvenile Offenders. New Jersey:

Department of Corrections, Division of Juvenile Services, 1984.

Gelles, R.J. The Violent Home: A Study of Physical Aggression Between

Husbands and wives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1972.

203
Gelles, R.J., and Straus, M.A. Is violence towards children increasing? A

comparison of 1975 and 1985 National Survey rates. Presented at the

Seventh National Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, Chicago, IL

November 1985.

Gerson, L.W. Alcohol-related acts of violence: Who was drinking and

where the acts occurred. J Stud Alcohol 39(7):1294-1296, 1978.

Gil, D. Violence against children. J Marriage Family 33:637-698, 1971.

Goldstein, P.J. Prostitution and Drugs. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books,

D.C. Heath and Company, 1979.

Goldstein, P.J. The drugs/violence nexus: A tripartite conceptual framework. J Drug Issues 15(4):493-506, 1985.

Goldstein, P.J.; Bellucci, M.A.; Spunt, B.J.; and Miller, T. Frequency of

cocaine use and violence: A comparison between men and women.

Manuscript submitted for presentation at the National Institute for Drug

Abuse Meeting on “The Epidemiology of Cocaine Use and Abuse,” May

1988.

Goldston, D.B.; Turnquist, D.C.; and Knutson, J.F. Presenting problems of

sexually abused girls receiving psychiatric services. J Abnorm Psycho1

98(3):314-317, 1989.

Herman, J. Father-Daughter Incest. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,

1981.

Herman, J., and Hirschman, L Families at risk for father-daughter incest.

Am J Psychiatry 138:967-970, 1981.

Hilberman, E., and Munson, K. Sixty battered women. Victimology 2:460-

471, 1978.

Holmes, S.J., and Robins, LN. The role of parental disciplinary practices

in the development of depression and alcoholism. Psychiatry 51:24-36,

1988.

Jones, M.C. Personality correlates and antecedents of drinking patterns in

women. J Consult Clin Psycho1 36:61-69, 1971.

Kagle, J.D. Women who drink: Changing images, changing realities. J

Soc Work Educ Fall (3):21-28, 1987.

Kantor, G.K., and Straus, M.A. Substance abuse as a precipitant of family

violence victimization. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 15(2):173-189, 1989.

Kinsey, B.A. Psychological factors in alcoholic women from a state hospital sample. Am J Psychiatry 124:1463-1466, 1968.

Kroll, P.D.; Stock, D.F.; and James, M.E. The behavior of adult alcoholic

men abused as children. J New Ment Dis 173:689-693, 1985.

Leonard, K.E.; Bromet, E.J.; Parkinson, D.K.; Day, N.L.; and Ryan, C.M.

Patterns of alcohol use and physically aggressive behavior. J Stud Alcohol 46:279-282, 1985.

Leonard, K.E., and Jacob, T. Alcohol, alcoholism, and family violence. In:

Van Hasselt, V.B.; Morrison, R.L; Bellack, A.S.; and Hersen, J., eds.

Handbook of Family Violence. New York: Plenum Press, 1988.

pp. 383-406.

204
Lisansky-Gomberg, E.S., and Lisansky, J.M. Antecedents of alcohol problems in women. In: Wilsnack, S.C., and Beckman, LJ., eds. Alcohol

Problems in Women: Antecedents, Consequences, and Intervention. New

York: Guilford Press, 1984. pp. 233-259.

McCord, J. A forty-year perspective on effects of child abuse and neglect.

Child Abuse Negl 7:265-270, 1983.

Meiselman, K.C. Incest: A Psychological Study of Causes and Effects with

Treatment Recommendations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978.

Miller, B.A. Illegal drug use among women in detention. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, State University of New York, Albany, 1980.

Miller, B.A.; Downs, W.R.; and Gondoli, D.M. Spousal violence among

alcoholic women as compared to a random household sample of women.

J Stud Alcohol 50(6):533-540, 1989.

Miller, B.A.; Downs, W.R.; Gondoli, D.M.; and Keil, A.V. Childhood

sexual abuse incidents for alcoholic women versus a random household

sample. Violence and Victims 2(3):157-172, 1987.

Miller, B.A.; Nochajski, T.H.; Leonard, K.E.; Blane, H.T.; Gondoli, D.M.;

and Bowers, P.M. Spousal violence and alcohol/drug problems among

parolees and their spouses. Women Crim Justice 1(2):55-72, 1990.

Nisonoff, L, and Bitman, I. Spouse abuse. Victimology 4:131-140, 1979.

Oates, R.K.; Forrest, D.; and Peacock, A. Self-esteem of abused children.

Child Abuse Negl 9:159-163, 1985.

Pemanen, K. Experiences of violence and their association with alcohol use

in the general population of a community. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Philadelphia, PA, 1979.

Peters, S.D.; Wyatt, G.E.; and Finkelhor, D. Prevalence. In: Finkelhor,

D., ed. A Sourcebook on Child Sexual Abuse. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Publications, 1986. pp. 15-59.

Robins, L.N.; Helzer, J.E.; Croughan, J.; and Ratcliff, K.S. National Institute of Mental Health diagnostic interview schedule. Arch Gen Psychiatry

38:381-389, 1981.

Rohsenow, D.J.; Corbett, R.; and Devine, D. Molested as children: The

hidden contribution to alcohol and substance abuse. Presented at the

annual meeting of the American Medical Society of Alcohol and Other

Drug Dependence, San Francisco, CA, April 1986.

Rosenbaum, M. Women on Heroin. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1981.

Roy, M. Four thousand partners in violence: A trend analysis. In: Roy,

M., ed. The Abusive Partner: An Analysis of Domestic Battering. New

York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1982. pp. 17-35.

Russell, D.E.H. The incidence and prevalence of intrafamilial and extrafamilial sexual abuse of female children. Child Abuse Negl 7:133-146,

1983.

Sandmaier, M. The Invisible Alcoholics: Women and Alcohol Abuse in

America New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980.

205
Schuckit, M.A. Depression and alcoholism in women. Proceedings of the

First Annual Alcoholism Conference of the National Institute on Alcohol

Abuse and Alcoholism, 1973. pp. 355-363.

Schuckit, M.; Pitts, F.N.; Reich, T.; King, L.J.; and Winokur, G. Alcoholism I: Two types of alcoholism in women. Arch Gen Psychiatry

20:301-306, 1969.

Selzer, M.L. The Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test: The quest for a

new diagnostic instrument. Am J Psychiatry 127(12):1653-1658, 1971.

Singer, M.I.; Petchers, M.K.; and Hussey, D. The relationship between

sexual abuse and substance abuse among psychiatrically hospitalized

adolescents. Child Abuse Negl: Int J 13:319-325, 1989.

Singer, S.I. Victims of serious violence and their criminal behavior: Subcultural theory and beyond. Violence and Victims 1:61-70, 1986.

Sgroi, S.M. Handbook of Clinical Intervention in Child Sexual Abuse.

Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1982.

Smith, S.M.; Hanson, R.; and Noble, S. Parents of battered babies: A

controlled study. Br Med J 4:388-391, 1973.

Straus, M.A. Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict

Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family 41:75-86,

1979.

Straus, M.A., and Gelles, R.J. Societal change and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of

Marriage and the Family 48:465-479, 1986.

Straus, M.A., and Gelles, R.J. Physical Violence in American Families:

Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1990.

Straus, M.A.; Gelles, R.J.; and Steinmetz, S.K. Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Books, 1980.

Timnick, L. The Times Poll—22% in survey were child abuse victims.

The Los Angeles Times, August 25, 1985. pp. 1, 34.

Tinklenberg, J.; Murphy, P.; Darley, C.; Roth, W.; and Kopell, B. Drug

involvement in criminal assaults by adolescents. Arch Gen Psychiatry

30:685-689, 1974.

Tinklenberg, J.; Murphy, P.; Murphy, P.L; and Pfefferbaum, A. Drugs and

criminal assaults by adolescents: A replication study. J Psychoactive

Drugs 13(3):277-287, 1981.

Tinklenberg, J.; Roth, W.; Kopell, B.; and Murphy, P. Cannabis and alcohol effects on assaultiveness in adolescent delinquents. Ann NY Acad Sci

282:85-94, 1976.

Van Hasselt, V.B.; Morrison, R.L.; and Bellack, A.S. Alcohol use in wife

abusers and their spouses. Addict Behav 10:127-135, 1985.

Virkkunen, M. Incest offenses and alcoholism. Med Sci Law 14(2):124-

128, 1974.

Walker, L.E. The battered woman syndrome study. In: Finkelhor, D.;

Gelles, R.J.; Hotaling, G.T.; and Straus, M.A., eds. The Dark Side of

Families: Current Family Violence Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Publications, 1983. pp. 31-48.

206
Wood, H., and Duffy, E. Psychological factors in alcoholic women. Am J

Psychiatry 123(3):341-345, 1966.

Wyatt, G.E. The sexual abuse of afro-american and white-american women

in childhood. Child Abuse Negl 9:507-519, 1985.

Zucker, R.A., and Devoe, C.I. Life history characteristics associated with

problem drinking and antisocial behavior in adolescent girls: A comparison with male findings. In: Wirt, R.D.; Winokur, G.; and Roff, M., eds.

Life History Research in Psychopathology (4). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1975.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The research in this chapter is based in part upon a study entitled, “Intraand Inter-Generational Aspects of Serious Domestic Violence and

Alcohol/Drug,” which was supported in part by grant number 86-IJ-CX0035 from the National Institute of Justice.

AUTHOR

Brenda A. Miller, Ph.D.

Deputy Director

Research Institute on Alcoholism

1021 Main Street

Buffalo, NY 14203

207
Drug-Related Violence and Street

Prostitution

Claire E. Sterk and Kirk W. Elifson

INTRODUCTION

Prostitution and drug use are part of everyday life in our society despite

public health and education efforts to reduce these high-risk behaviors.

Prostitution is defined as providing sexual services in return for material

gain such as money or drugs. While women as well as men can work as

prostitutes, male hustlers are not as common. One of the primary differences between female and male prostitutes is that, in the case of male

hustlers, the prostitutes and their customers are normally of the same sex,

whereas the clients of female prostitutes are typically of the opposite sex.

Consequently, hustlers exist in two subcultures in our society as both homosexuals and prostitutes.

Although prostitutes deliver similar services, they are accorded differential

status depending on their work situations. Call girls or boys hold a higher

status than those prostitutes associated with a brothel, who in return command more respect than those working in “cheap” hotels or motels or in the

street (Greenwald 1958; Gagnon 1977; Miller 1986). This chapter will

focus on prostitutes who recruit their customers in a public setting, mainly

on “strolls,” which are streets known for continuing prostitution activities.

This type of prostitution is referred to as street prostitution. Those working

as street prostitutes are in a more vulnerable position than their higher

status counterparts due to the less protected circumstances in which they

operate. Call girls or boys normally meet their customers in hotel rooms,

which provide a semicontrolled environment ideal for customers who require

discretion. Most escort services request that their employees--for their own

and their employees’ protection—notify the agency as soon as they enter or

leave a hotel room (Foltz 1979). The prostitutes are required to make an

additional call if they extend their stay. Brothels normally employ a

“bouncer,” and the rooms are often equipped with alarm systems; consequently, brothel prostitutes work in the most protected situation (Prus and

Irini 1980). While these prostitutes operate in an environment in which

208
rules exist on condoned sexual acts and their prices, street prostitutes work

in ambiguous conditions in which negotiation determines the type of sex

act, its price, and the location (Luckenbill 1984).

The nature and extent of violence that street prostitutes encounter are matters of increasing concern to those men and women working in commercial

sex. This violence is frequently related to drug-use activities on and near

strolls and also increasingly affects residents of these areas and passers-by.

Drug use among the prostitutes in this study refers to the intravenous (IV)

or non-IV use of heroin, cocaine, or both. Although the majority of drug

users are polydrug users, heroin or cocaine tend to be the drugs of choice.

The links between prostitution and drug use and between drug use and related violence have been welI documented (Ellinswood 1971; Smith 1972;

James 1976; Feldman et al. 1979; Goldstein 1979; Inciardi 1981; Rosenbaum 1981; Miller 1986). In this chapter, an integrated analysis of the relationship between prostitution, drug use, and violence will be presented to

provide more insight into the complex social context in which these three

behaviors occur.

METHODS

The primary data sources are interviews with 106 female drug-using “streetwalkers” in the New York metropolitan area and 206 male “hustlers” in the

Atlanta area. The male and female samples were collected as part of two

larger studies. The females were interviewed between July 1986 and March

1989 and the males between March 1988 and July 1989. We conducted 15

open-ended interviews with customers of prostitutes. The Atlanta male

hustler sample was 58 percent white and 42 percent black; the mean age

was 25; and they worked an average of 5.7 years as prostitutes. Of the

New York female prostitutes, 82 percent were black, and their mean age

was 30; they had been prostituting themselves for an average of 7.3 years.

Prostitutes are a “hidden” population due to their mobility and their involvement in illegal activities, thus creating sampling and validity problems.

Watters and Biemacki (1989) suggest “targeted sampling” as an appropriate

method for recruiting such hidden populations. In our samples, we used

targeted sampling that combined a variety of recruitment strategies: street

ethnography (Weppner 1977), theoretical sampling (Glaser and Strauss

1967), and snowball sampling (Biernacki and Waldorf 1981; Kaplan et al.

1987).

The data are largely based on indepth interviews in which the following

issues were discussed: interaction of the prostitutes with colleagues, pimps,

and customers; extent of involvement in prostitution activities; initiation

into drug use, frequency of drug use, and the shift from incidental to

209
regular drug use; violence encountered; and changes that occurred in the

“street scene.”

We avoided drawing a convenience sample of prostitutes in institutional

settings, e.g., drug treatment or detention facilities. Only actively working

street prostitutes were recruited, and each interview was conducted in the

prostitute’s natural setting, such as a park, a local coffee shop or restaurant,

a car, a parking lot, or on the sidewalk. Recruiting and interviewing respondents in situations with which they are familiar and that they consider

as their “territory” enhances their willingness to cooperate and offers greater

opportunity to cross-check information. Valid data regarding drug use and

sexual activity are difficult to collect (Harrel 1985). To increase the validity of information regarding these behaviors, we developed several validation strategies, and methods were used to prevent multiple interviews with

the same respondent, such as comparison of handwritten participant numbers

(Elifson et al. 1989). The respondents wrote their own study-participant

numbers on several consent forms, and this allowed us to compare handwriting. Data were validated in part by many hours of observing activities

of individuals in the geographical areas included in the study. Discrepancies were challenged during interviews. For example, if the researcher

never observed condoms on the street or if none of the respondents carried

condoms, even though they reported condom use, the inconsistency was

openly discussed. Answers to questions about personal behavior and behaviors of others in a similar position, e.g., what do you do compared with

what you think most people do, were also compared and challenged.

PROSTITUTION, DRUG USE, AND VIOLENCE

While the prostitution literature clearly concentrates on females, the drug

literature focuses primarily on males. Drug use has historically been

viewed as a male problem, but this orientation was revised once the extent

of drug use among women became evident (Anglin and Hser 1987). Violence against female prostitutes is not a recent phenomenon and has also

received considerable attention (Winidc and Kinsie 1971; Enablers 1978;

Merry 1980; Prus and Irini 1980; Rosen 1982; Weisberg 1985; Silbert and

Pines 1983; Miller 1986). The related literature on male prostitutes is less

abundant (Reiss 1961; Enablers 1978; Bracey 1979; Pieper 1979; Sternberg

1983). The violence encountered by male and female prostitutes reported in

the literature is frequently initiated by customers (Winick and Kinsie 1971;

Enablers 1978; Bracey 1979; Symanski 1981; Weisberg 1985; Miller 1986;

Reynolds 1986) and, in the case of female prostitutes, their pimps (Milner

and Milner 1972; Gagnon 1977; Bracey 1979; Merry 1980, Armstrong

1983). On the other hand, the prostitutes also precipitate violent encounters

with their customers and colleagues (Winick and Kinsie 1971; Sternberg

1973; MacNamara and Sagarin 1977; Enablers 1978; Bracey 1979).

210
Violence seems endemic to the world of prostitution. Often this violence is

due to aggressive interaction patterns within the prostitution market, and

these are similar to those found in the illicit-drug distribution business.

Most prostitution-related violence results from encounters between prostitutes

and their pimps over territory and non-drug-related business transactions. A

second form of violence increasingly involving prostitutes is related to their

drug-use behavior and increased involvement in the drug trade. This drugrelated violence may be viewed as psychopharmacological, systemic, or

economic compulsive.

Psychopharmacological violence occurs when drug use causes individuals to

become agitated and irrational and hence induces violent behavior. Economic compulsive violence occurs when drug users become involved in violent crimes to support their drug habits. Systemic violence refer to the traditionally aggressive patterns of interaction within the system of drug distribution and drug use (Goldstein 1985).

The literature documents a strong overlap between prostitution and drug use

(James 1976, Goldstein 1979, Allen 1980; Boyer and James 1983; Weisberg

1985). There are two main routes into the worlds of drug use and prostitution (James 1976; Goldstein 1979; Rosenbaum 1981; Miller 1986). Some

drug-using prostitutes were addicted prior to their entrance into commercial

vice and started “turning tricks” to support their drug habits. Other prostitutes engaged in prostitution prior to becoming drug users. The availability

and affordability of drugs coupled with a need to cope with the stress of

prostitution lead many to experiment with illegal substances. Studying

drug-using street prostitutes requires consideration of violence related to

both prostitution activities and drug use.

THE ATLANTA AND NEW YORK SITUATIONS

We identified a strong tie between prostitution and drug use. All females

were drug users—a criterion to be included in this study—and 78.1 percent

of the males reported drug use. The prostitution and drug market typically

can be found in the same or in adjacent areas-strolls near “drug-copping

zones.” Field notes captured the following example of violence that occurred in an area where the two activities are adjacent.

T.X. hustles on A-street and cops drugs in a housing project that is 10 minutes away. He went out last night and

had a few customers. After he earned enough money, he

went to the project to buy drugs (heroin or cocaine).

Once be walked up to his dealer’s house—three guys with

knives walked up and demanded his money . . . The situation escalated. The hustler explained that they looked for

guys coming from A-street.

211
Many of the prostitutes’ friends, lovers, or pimps are often drug users.

Female prostitutes reported that they frequently supported their own and

their boyfriends’ drug habits, but supporting a steady partner was uncommon for the men. Even if the hustler shared his income, it was unusual to

share the earnings in the same way that female prostitutes often did with

their male partners. Table 1 shows the patterns of drug use among the

respondents.

TABLE 1. Current drug use among female and male prostitutes

Females (New York) Males (Atlanta)

Number Percent Number Percent

Mainly IV use of

Heroin or Cocaine*

72 68.0 80 38.8

Mainly Smoking of

Crack Cocaine

34 32.0 81 39.3

No Heroin or

Cocaine Use

- - 45 21.9

*Among the male hustlers, IV drug use primarily involved injecting cocaine.

Smoking crack cocaine or freebasing cocaine was reported by 32.0 percent

of the women and 39.3 percent of the men. IV drug use of heroin, cocaine, or a combination of the two, called a “speedball,” was reported by

68.0 percent of female prostitutes and 38.8 percent of male hustlers. Reinterviews with a subsample of male hustlers revealed that crack use increased from 42.0 percent to 68.0 percent from July through December

1989. Nine of the women switched from IV drug use to freebasing or

smoking crack cocaine during the research period.

Findings indicate a sharp contrast between male and female respondents

whose drug use led them into prostitution and those who moved from prostitution to drug use. These results are presented in table 2.

While the majority of the women were using drugs prior to their involvement in prostitution, most of the men were hustling first. The data indicate

that many women began working as street prostitutes to support their drug

habits, while male hustlers started using drugs in response to peer pressure

and the availability and affordability of drugs. The interviews also affirmed

that most female prostitutes see themselves primarily as drug users, while

most male hustlers identify themselves primarily as prostitutes; the men

indicated they would not be using drugs if they were not hustling, while

212
Table 2. Pathways into drug use and prostitution for males and females

Females (New York) Males (Atlanta)*

Number Percent Number Percent

Drug User Prior to 78 73.6 35 21.8

Prostitution Activities

Involved in Prostitution

Prior to Drug Use

28 26.4 98 60.8

*We were unable to determine the pattern for 28 of the men, and as indicated in table 1, 45 reported

no use of heroin or cocaine.

the majority of the women contended they would not be prostituting themselves if they were not using drugs.

With the introduction of crack cocaine on the drug market, a new form of

prostitution emerged among the females, and those involved in this behavior

are referred to as “crack whores.” Heather, an 18-year-old white woman,

began obtaining crack cocaine for sexual favors 2 years prior to recognizing

she was engaging in prostitution. She related this account:

I grew up in a protected world. At school I heard my

friends talk about drugs, but I would stay away from the

kids that were experimenting. I was curious, and one day

it just happened. My best friend had been trying cocaine,

and she told me she had smoked crack . . . I tried it once,

and the next day I took my money with me to buy more.

I got involved in everything, including sex . . . I was a

whore, but I didn’t know it until I had to find johns on

the street.

Of the female prostitutes who smoked crack cocaine (n=34), almost half

(n=15) reported that they were addicted to this drug and were performing

sex in exchange for the drug or for money to purchase it before they identified themselves as prostitutes. In contrast, only two male hustlers admitted

that they had engaged in sex at so-called “crack spots” in return for money

to buy crack cocaine. These two men labeled themselves immediately as

prostitutes and did not experience the denial process described by Heather

and other women. They also never exchanged sex directly for crack. Male

hustlers who smoke crack cocaine are generally paid in dollars. This may

change as more male prostitutes become addicted to crack or as more males

become prostitutes due to an expensive crack habit.

213
Ultimately the search for a source to support a crack cocaine habit led

many of its users to the streets. A black male in his early twenties revealed how he lost his job in Houston after having turned to crack cocaine

following his separation from his wife. His drug use led him into prostitution. He has been working as a street hustler for 2 years and is dealing

with his craving for crack.

PATTERNS OF DRUG USE AND RELATED VIOLENCE:

A DISCUSSION

While IV drug use was common among heroin-using street prostitutes,

snorting was the preferred mode of administration for cocaine users. IV

cocaine use became increasingly popular in the late seventies and early

eighties when supply exceeded demand and the drug was being marketed

cheaply. As a result, cocaine became the drug of choice for a growing

number of people, with confounding changes in drug-use patterns. The different psychopharmacological effects of heroin and cocaine are associated

with marked differences in behaviors (Friedman et al. 1989). While a

heroin high tends to be relaxing and can last for several hours, cocaine has

the opposite effect, with a high generally less than 20 minutes. Consequently, cocaine is injected more frequently over a short period of time,

very often referred to as a “binge.” Among the Atlanta and New York

prostitutes, IV cocaine use was reported to be more common among the

males than among the females. The women preferred to inject heroin or

speedballs (data not shown). It is unclear whether this discrepancy is due

to the availability of heroin or cocaine on the New York and Atlanta markets or to gender differences.

With the increasing availability of cocaine on the drug market, the use of

crack cocaine or freebasing cocaine became more popular. Those who did

not want or like to inject drugs could get a similar high by smoking crack

cocaine. In addition, cocaine became affordable for less prosperous individuals. If a user could not afford $50 or more to buy a gram, smaller

amounts could be purchased—owing to marketing of rocks of crack cocaine—for a price between $5 and $20. This does not mean, however, that

a crack cocaine habit is cheap. Users become addicted very quickly, and

the crack-cocaine-using prostitutes reported that they would continue to buy

the drug until they had exhausted their funds.

Among drug-using street prostitutes, the frequency and extent of violence

are linked to both their drug use and their prostitution activities. This discussion focuses on ways in which current patterns of drug use among prostitutes have contributed to an increase in violence in an already violent

lifestyle.

214
Psychophamacologic Violence

The most common type of violence reported by the prostitutes is psychopharmacologic. Both male and female prostitutes stated that their drug use

had a negative effect on their attitudes and that they easily became irritable

and hostile if they had been using drugs. The psychopharmacologic effects

of prolonged cocaine use, such as aggression, anxiety, suspicion, and fear,

were frequently mentioned as reasons for violence. Similarly, prostitutes

reported being hostile and sometimes violent while coming down from a

high, unable to satisfy a customer, or unwilling to spend more than 10 minutes with him. We did not find a difference according to gender.

The greater the “crash” (coming down from a high), the more violent the

prostitutes became with customers. Since the crash from cocaine has been

shown to be intense and an increasing number of street prostitutes use cocaine, the interaction between prostitute and customer seems to have become

mom violence prone than in the past. Prostitutes and customers are unlikely to report these incidents to the legal authorities because of the illegal

character of their activities.

The prostitutes’ drug use affects not only their interaction with customers,

but also relationships with colleagues. Traditionally, drug-using prostitutes

have been accused by their non-drug-using peers of giving prostitutes a

negative reputation and of disturbing the market by working for relatively

low prices, not being selective with customers, or providing uncommon

sexual services (James 1976; Goldstein 1979; Rosenbaum 1981; Miller

1986). Although initially the female crack cocaine prostitutes worked away

from the strolls, recently they have begun to encroach on the “regular”

strolls-places where sex is less commonly exchanged for drugs but where

money is the medium of exchange. The non-crack-cocaine-using prostitutes

stated that their crack-using competitors constantly violated norms, e.g., stole

other prostitutes’ clients or worked below marker rates. The norm among

street prostitutes is not to interrupt once a prostitute and client begin negotiating. Due to their crack use, such women, according to their peers, often

violated this tacit agreement and precipitated violence. The prostitutes who

do not use crack view cocaine as a drug that makes people “crazier” (uncontrollable and aggressive) than does any other drug. Several female

prostitutes mentioned that crack cocaine users on the stroll became violent

and were unable to recall the incident. The drugs had made them angry,

and they lost control.

The prostitutes’ drug use also causes them to be victimized. Some prostitutes reported that they could not remember whether, or under what exact

circumstances, they had trouble—varying from verbal argument to violent

episode—with a customer nor could they recall the customer’s description.

Generally, the prostitutes return to the stroll after they have acquired and

215
used a drug. This places them in a vulnerable position if they are recognized by a recent victim.

Prostitutes are also prone to become victims if their clients realize they are

high and see this as an invitation to take advantage of them. The female

prostitutes reported having been forced to perform sex without payment

(n=7), having been physically assaulted and robbed of their earnings (n=32),

and having been forced into sexual acts they refused to perform (n=19).

None of the male prostitutes reported being victimized by customers due to

their drug use.

A main difference between male and female prostitutes is that most of the

time female prostitutes’ pimps are involved. The majority of the female

prostitutes (n=72) reported working for a pimp. Of these 72 women, 88.9

percent reported having been physically assaulted by their pimps. These

assaults frequently stemmed from disputes over excessive drug use and

problems relating to craving or withdrawal. The earnings of addicted prostitutes may be reduced by their drug dependency, and they often seek to

withhold payment to their pimps to ensure a regular drug supply.

Drug use among female prostitutes may also limit the number of customers

they can deal with, consequently angering their pimps. A woman who is

slow or a woman who returns less money than she should is subject to

repeated abuse. The probability of violence escalates if both the pimp and

the woman are drug users, since both partners must deal with the psychopharmacological effects of drug abuse, and both partners feel pressure to

earn enough money to support their drug habits.

Crack-addicted prostitutes differ from their peers in that the role of a pimp

in facilitating their entry into prostitution is limited. These women indicate

that they became involved in prostitution primarily because of their intense

craving for crack cocaine. They are less loyal and compliant than noncrack-cocaine-using women, No data are available for male prostitutes,

since we are not aware of hustlers working for pimps.

Systemic Violence

The second common type of violence is systemic violence. As indicated,

IV cocaine users tend to inject more frequently during a relatively short

period of time than do heroin users. One-third of the male and female

cocaine injectors mentioned verbal arguments and fights over the state of

their injection equipment, e.g., a shortage of hypodermic sets and dull,

clogged, or broken syringes. Systemic violence among the street prostitutes

has also changed due to increased crack cocaine use. Data derived from

qualitative interviews indicate that an increasing percentage of prostitutes,

both male and female, have become involved in drug dealing, and 43 percent of the women report involvement in drug dealing (data for the males

216
are lacking). The prostitutes’ involvement in drug dealing increases the rate

of violence, not only between them, but also with others involved in the

drug trade. Systemic violence related to drug dealing includes violent disputes about the price or quality of drugs and drug paraphernalia, retribution

for failing to pay debts to dealers higher in the hierarchy, or for selling

adulterated drugs. In addition, several female prostitutes mentioned making

money on the side by working as lookouts for the crack dealers. Perpetrators and victims constantly change roles; the person who “performs” one

day might be a victim the next. The fear of becoming a victim was mentioned by several respondents as a reason for their victimizing others.

Economic Compulsive Violence

The prostitutes’ drug use can also cause them to engage in economically

oriented violent crimes, including robbery of customers. Holzman and Pines

(1982) describe how the majority of the prostitutes’ clients pursue the encounter with “great expectations.” Clients anticipate that the prostitute will

meet their sexual desires. As one customer stated “I’m paying for complete satisfaction.” Due to their craving for more drugs and their withdrawal symptoms, however, two-thirds of the female prostitutes reported situations in which they failed to satisfy a customer, or they refused to engage

in a time-consuming sexual act. These prostitutes reported being obsessed

with getting money to purchase drugs, stating they would try to dispense

with their clients “quickly” or would seek money without offering sex.

Over 69 percent of the New York and Atlanta respondents (n=216) mentioned that they had robbed a customer at least once and used the money to

purchase drugs. The qualitative interview data indicated that male prostitutes were more likely than women to engage in robbery to support their

drug habits. These qualitative data do not allow presentation of percentages, since some prostitutes during the interview referred to their own

involvement and others referred to their own and other prostitutes’ involvement while talking about involvement in robberies. One hustler admitted

that he had been arrested several times for simple battery, attempted robbery, and aggravated assault. The females tended to support their drug

habits by engaging in crimes such as shoplifting or drug dealing.

The excessive financial cost of a crack habit has led to an increase in

economic compulsive violence. In addition to crack’s being an expensive

habit to support, the pattern of crack use is very compulsive. Goldstein

(1985) has identified these factors as important motives behind economic

compulsive violence. Sufficient data were not available to distinguish

between male and female prostitutes on this issue.

Additionally, the prostitutes reported that drug users not involved in prostitution activities increasingly tried to rob them. Many male and female

prostitutes indicated that “since crack I realize I can’t be out here after

217
dark I never thought I would quit . . . The things that are going on are

unheard of.”

CONCLUSION

In discussing prostitution and related violence, the existence of male hustlers

cannot be ignored. Although they are less common, they form an important

part of the prostitution business. Data from our sample reveal that, although men often enter prostitution prior to becoming drug abusers, women

are already using illicit drugs before they become prostitutes. We have

indications that the number of Atlanta men who prostitute themselves to

support their drug habits might increase with the growing number of crack

cocaine users. While the term “crack whores” still refers to females who

exchange sex for crack cocaine, this expression might soon apply to men.

The emerging crack cocaine epidemic is changing the dynamics of the prostitution market; crack-cocaine-using prostitutes (females and males) are

feared by their peers, since they are seen as responsible for increases in

frequency and severity of violent episodes, such as violent incidents with

colleagues, customers, and pimps or between pimps, and violence related to

drug dealing. In general, street prostitution has become more unpredictable

and dangerous. With the growing overlap between prostitution and drug

use, more violent episodes on the prostitution market are related to the prostitutes’ drug-using behaviors and increased involvement in the drug trade.

Our findings are based on open-ended interviews and provide insight into

the social ecology of female and male prostitution strolls and drug-copping

areas. Effective changes are needed to improve the situation. These include expansion of drug-treatment opportunities, educational opportunities,

and job alternatives for prostitutes. At the same time, there is a need for

additional research on drug-related violence among street prostitutes, given

the increased involvement of prostitutes in the drug-using and drug-dealing

subculture.

REFERENCES

Allen, D. Young male prostitutes: A psychological study. Arch Sex

Behav 9:399-426, 1980.

Anglin, D.M., and Hser, Y. Addicted women and crime. Criminology

25:359-397, 1987.

Armstrong, E. Pondering pandering. Dev Behav 1:203-217, 1983.

Biemacki, P., and Waldorf, D. Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Soc Methods Res 2:141-163, 1981.

Boyer, D., and James, J. Prostitutes as victims. In: MacNamara, D., and

Karmet, A., eds. Deviants: Victims or Victimizers. Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage, 1983. pp. 109-146.

218
Bracey, D. Baby-Pros: Preliminary Profiles of Juvenile Prostitutes. New

York: Johns Hopkins Press, 1979.

Elifson, K.; Boles, J.; and Sweat, M. Studying male prostitutes during the

AIDS crisis: The tension between epidemiology, ethnography and outreach. Submitted for publication, 1989.

Ellinswood, E. Assault and homicide associated with amphetamine abuse.

Am J Psychiatry 127:1170-1175, 1971.

Enablers, Inc. Juvenile Prostitution in Minnesota. Internal report, 1978.

Feldman, H.; Agar, M.H.; and Beschner, G.M., eds. Angel Dust: An

Ethnographic Study of PCP Users. Lexington: Lexington Books, 1979.

Foltz, T. Escort services: An emerging middle class sex-for-money

scheme. California Sociologist 2:105-133, 1979.

Friedman, S.R.; Sterk, C.E.; Suffiin, M.; and Des Jarlais, D. Potential

limitations of the use of bleach as a HIV decontaminant by intravenous

drug users. JAMA 262:1467, 1989.

Gagnon, J.H. Human Sexualities. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman, 1977.

Glaser, B.G., and Strauss, A. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1967.

Goldstein, P.J. Prostitution and Drugs. Lexington: Lexington Books, 1979.

Goldstein, P.J. The drugs violence nexus: A tripartite conceptual framework. J Drug Issues 15:493-506, 1985.

Greenwald, H. The Call Girl: A Social and Psychoanalytic Study. New

York: Ballantine Books, 1958.

Harrel, A. Validation of self-report: The research record. In: Rouse, B.;

Kozel, N.; and Richards, L., eds. Self-Report Methods of Estimating

Drug Use: Meeting Current Challenges to Validity. National Institute on

Drug Abuse Research Monograph 57. Rockville MD: the Institute, 1985.

Holzman, H., and Pines, S. Buying sex: The phenomenology of being a

john. Dev Behav 4:89-116, 1982.

Inciardi, J.A. The Drugs/Crime Connection. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Publications, 1981.

James, J. Prostitution and addiction: An interdisciplinary approach. Int J

Addict 2:601-618, 1976.

Kaplan, C.D.; Korf, D.; and Sterk, C.E. Temporal and social contexts of

heroin-using populations: An illustration of the snowball sampling technique. J Nerv Ment Dis 175(9):566-574, 1987.

Luckenbill, D. Dynamics of the deviant sale. Dev Behav 5:337-353, 1984.

MacNamara, D., and Sagarin, E. Sex, Crime and the Law. New York:

Free Press, 1977.

MacVicar, K., and Dillon, M. Childhood and adolescent development of

ten female prostitutes. J Am Acad Child Psychiatry 1:145-159, 1980.

Merry, S. Manipulating anonymity: Streetwalkers strategies for safety in

the city. Ethnos 45:157-175, 1980.

Miller, E. Street Women Philadelphia: Temple Press, 1986.

Milner, C., and Milner, R. Black Players: The Secret World of Black

Pimps. Boston: Little Brown, 1972.

219
Pearl, J. The highest paying customers: America’s cities and the costs of

prostitution control. Hastings Law Journal 38:769-800, 1987.

Pieper, R. Identity management in adolescent male prostitution in West

Germany. Int Rev Modem Soc 9:239-259, 1979.

Prus, R., and Irini, S. Hookers, Rounders, and Desk Clerks: The Social

Organization of the Hotel Community. Salem, WI: Sheffield Publishing

Co., 1980.

Reiss, A. The social integration of queers and peers. Social Problems

9:102-109, 1961.

Reynolds, H. The Economics of Prostitution. Springfield: Thomas, 1986.

Rosen, R. The Lost Sisterhood: Prostitution in America 1900-1918.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982.

Rosenbaum, M. Women on Heroin. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Silbert, M. Sexual Assault of Prostitutes. Washington, DC: National Center

for Prevention and Control of Rape, the National Institute of Mental

Health, 1980.

Smith, R. Speed and violence: Compulsive methamphetamine abuse and

criminality in the Haight-Ashbury district. In: Zarsfonetis, B., ed. Drug

Abuse: Proceedings of the International Conference. Philadelphia: Lea

and Febiger, 1972.

Sterk, C.E. Living the Life: Prostitutes and Their Health. Rotterdam:

Erasmus University Press, 1990.

Stemberg, D. Prostitutes as victimizers. In: MacNamara D., and Karmen,

A., eds. Deviants: Victims or Victimizers. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage,

1983. pp. 77-107.

Symanski, R. The Immoral Landscape: Female Prostitution in Western

Society. Toronto: Butterworth, 1981.

Watters, J.K., and Biernacki, P. Targeted sampling: Options for the study

of hidden populations. Social Problems 36(4):416-430, 1989.

Weisberg, K. Children of the Night: A Study of Adolescent Prostitution

Lexington: Lexington Books, 1985.

Weppner, R.S. Street Ethnography: Selected Studies of Crime and Drug

Use in Natural Settings. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1977.

Winick, C., and Kinsie, P. The Lively Commerce. Chicago: Quadrangle

Press, 1971.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by grant number H62/CCR402972-02 from the

Centers fur Disease Control and a cooperative agreement between the

Center for social Research, City University of New York, and the Center

on Addiction Problems, Erasmus University, Rotterdam (the Netherlands).

220
AUTHORS

Claire E. Sterk, Ph.D.

Department of Anthropology

Kirk W. Elifson, Ph.D.

Department of Sociology

Georgia State University

University Plaza

Atlanta, GA 30303

221
Drug Disorder, Mental Illness, and

Violence

Karen M. Abram and Linda A. Teplin

INTRODUCTION

The relation between drug use and crime has been studied extensively

(Gandossy et al. 1980; Gropper 1985; Inciardi 1981; McBride and McCoy

1981; Nurco et al. 1985; Wish and Johnson 1986). However, the nature of

the connection between violent crime and drug use continues to be deliberated (Gandossy et al. 1980; Goldstein 1985; McBride 1981; Wish and

Johnson 1986). In part, the difficulty in understanding this connection

stems from the complexity of the phenomenon. Violence is determined by

an interplay of factors: the emotional states and motivations of the suspects

and victims, pharmacologic influences, the financial demands of sustaining a

habit, and the systemic context, i.e., the inherent danger of illegal drug

distribution (Blackburn 1986; Dembo et al. 1987; Gandossy et al. 1980;

Goldstein 1985; Langevin et al. 1987).

Understanding the connection between drugs and violent crime is also complicated by a lack of consensual definitions (Gandossy et al. 1980; Goldstein

1985). For example, operationalizations of drug use vary. Some studies

rely on urinalysis, which detects only very recent use. Other studies use

diagnostic or usage patterns, which reflect sustained use. Because each

aspect of substance abuse may have a unique relation to violent activity,

inconsistent findings in the literature are difficult to interpret.

One potentially influential variable in the relation between drugs and violent

crime is the addict’s co-occurring psychopathology (Langevin et al. 1987).

Psychopathology is likely to have an important effect for two reasons.

First, substance abuse and psychopathology frequently co-occur. Addicts

(Rounsaville et al. 1982; Khantzian and Treece 1985; Ling et al. 1973);

psychiatric patients, especially Veterans Administration (McLellan et al.

1978; O’Farrell et al. 1984); young adult chronic patients (Bergman and

Harris 1985; Test et al. 1985); and offender populations (Abram 1989;

Abram and Teplin, submitted for publication) have high rates of substance

222
abuse and psychopathology. Second, the interaction between addiction and

psychopathology appears to affect criminality. The type of psychopathology

exhibited by addicts is correlated with the effect of treatment on criminal

activity (Rounsaville et al. 1986, Woody et al. 1985). The importance of

psychological variables has also been confirmed by Weisman et al. (unpublished manuscript): criminal activity patterns successfully differentiated

addicts’ Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory profiles.

The connection between drug use, psychopathology, and violence raises a

number of questions. Do persons with dual diagnoses (both drug-use disorder and mental disorder) commit more violent crimes than persons who

abuse drugs but are not mentally ill? Are persons who suffer from certain

combinations of drug use and psychopathology particularly prone to violent

crime?

LlTERATURE REVIEW

Despite the need for information on drug use, mental disorder, and violent

crime, there are little data. Few studies include all three variables. For

example, no study of arrest rates among drug users controlled for co-occurring mental disorder. Two types of studies, however, provide some relevant

information: (1) studies of violent crime among mental patients (controlling

for co-occurring drug use); and (2) studies of co-occurring drug use and

mental illness among offenders.

Studies of Violent Crime Among Mental Patients

Studies of arrest rates among former psychiatric patients have generally

classified patients only by their primary diagnosis (Blade and Spinks 1985;

Durbin et al. 1977; Giovanonni and Gurel 1967; Rappeport and Lassen

1965; Sosowsky 1978; Zitrin 1976). Co-occurring drug disorders were not

measured. Because of insufficient sample size, two other studies did not

differentiate between violent and nonviolent arrests (Harry and Steadman

1988; Steadman et al. 1978). Only two studies of violent crime among

psychiatric patients included measures of substance abuse (Holcomb and

Ahr 1988; Klassen and O’Connor 1988a; Klassen and O’Connor 1988b).

Klasen and O’Connor studied inpatients who had a history of violent behavior to see what factors determined subsequent arrests for violent crime.

They found that, in addition to age and prior violence, substance abuse predicted subsequent violent crime. Holcomb and Ahr’s sample included

young adult inpatients. Their multivariate model for predicting violent

arrest examined a variety of socio-demographic and diagnostic variables. No

diagnosis (including substance abuse) was a significant predictor. Unfortunately, neither of these studies differentiated between alcohol and drug use.

223
Studies of Co-Occurring Drug Use and Psychopathology Among

Offenders

Three studies of offenders included drug, mental disorder, and violence variables (Abram 1989; Langevin et al. 1987; Swett 1985). In Swett’s sample

of criminally insane inmates, he found that violent offenders were less likely to have abused drugs than nonviolent offenders. On the other hand,

Langevin and colleagues found that, while violent offenders were more likely to use drugs than nonviolent offenders, there were no diagnostic differences between the groups. Their small sample, however, precluded examining these variables in a multivariate fashion. Abram (1989) examined the

effect of drug, alcohol, and antisocial disorder on previous arrest. She

found that when controlling for antisocial disorder and age, drug disorder

was not predictive of violent crime. However, Abram’s study did not include severe mental disorder nor did it differentiate between subtypes of

drug disorder.

In sum, no study has thoroughly examined the effect of drug use and cooccurring psychopathology on violence. This chapter examines the mediating role of mental illness in drug-violence relations among 728 male jail

detainees. Thus, this study will examine whether drug use and psychopathology, alone and in combination, are predictive of violence.

METHOD

Subjects

Data were collected between November 1983 and November 1984 at the

Cook County Department of Corrections (CCDC), in Chicago, IL. CCDC

is used solely for pretrial detention and for offenders sentenced less than 1

year on misdemeanor charges.

Subjects were male detainees randomly selected from pretrial arraignment

(n=728). For the study to include a sufficient number of detainees accused

of serious crimes, the sample was stratified by category of charge (one-half

misdemeanants, one-half felons). Persons charged with both misdemeanors

and felonies were categorized as felons. Data were then weighted to reflect

the jail’s actual misdemeanor-felony distribution.

All detainees, excluding persons with gunshot wounds or other traumatic

injuries, were part of the sampling pool. Personnel at the jail referred all

persons intended for participation in the project regardless of their mental

state, potential for violence, or fitness to stand trial. Since virtually no detainee was a priori ruled ineligible, the sample was unbiased in relation to

the characteristics of the larger jail population.

224
Subjects ranged in age from 16 to 68, with mean and median ages of 26.3

and 25, respectively. The majority were black (80.8 percent), 12 percent

were Caucasian, and 6.5 percent were Hispanic. The remaining (0.8 percent) subjects were mostly Asian and American Indian. Fewer than half of

the detainees were employed at the time of their arrest (42.6 percent). Education level ranged from 2 to 16 years, with mean and median being 10.6

and 11.0 years, respectively. These demographic characteristics are consistent with those of urban jails nationwide (U.S. Department of Justice, in

press).

Procedure

Interviewers were three clinical psychologists, all of whom held Ph.D.s and

were extensively trained in interviewing techniques, psychopathology, and

the data collection instrument. Persons selected by the random sampling

procedure (a random numbers table) were approached during the routine jail

intake process by the research interviewer. The potential subjects were told

that the goal of the project was to find out more about the people who

come to CCDC. The interviewer stressed that the detainees’ participation

would not affect their treatment while in jail or shorten their incarceration.

Subjects who agreed to participate signed a consent form and were paid $5

for taking part, Persons who declined to participate proceeded through

intake.

Of 767 detainees approached, only 35 (4.6 percent) declined to participate.

The low refusal rate was probably due to the detainees’ viewing the research project as a way of avoiding the crowded and dismal conditions of

the regular intake area. Two subjects were excluded because the interviewer felt they were inventing their responses. Two others were “duplicate”

subjects, they were rearrested at some time after their initial interview and

again randomly selected. The final n was 728.

Subjects were interviewed in a soundproof, private glass booth in the central

receiving and processing area. Diagnostic assessments were made using the

National Institute of Mental Health Diagnostic Interview Schedule (NIMH—

DIS) (Robins et al. 1981a). Empirical tests have documented the reliability

of the NIMH-DIS in both institutionalized samples and the general population (Burke 1986; Helzer et al. 1985; Robins et al. 1981b; Robins et al.

1982. In contrast, it must be noted that Anthony et al. (1985) found that

the NIMH-DIS disagreed substantially with psychiatric diagnoses The

NIMH-DIS systematically differentiates between disorders that were ever

manifest, even if currently remitted (“lifetime” disorders), and disorders in

which symptoms have been recently experienced (“current” disorders).

The NIMH-DIS provides diagnostic categories rather than global psychopathology scores. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Version III (DSM-III)

diagnoses are scored from the interview data by a computer program written

225
expressly for this purpose (Robins 1985a). Because of subject variance

over time and the rarity of many disorders, it is difficult to assess the reliability and validity of psychiatric assessments such as the NIMH-DIS

(Robins 1985b). Nevertheless, a test-retest consistency check of 20 cases

yielded results that compare favorably with other studies (Robins 1985b):

93 percent agreement across all diagnoses and 95 percent agreement for the

severe disorders. Two independent interviewers gave nearly identical profiles to 85 percent of the cases. Interviewer consistency was scrupulously

maintained after the initial 3-month training period via mock interviews with

live subjects, spot checks, and videotape training.

The interviews lasted between 1 and 3 hours, depending on the number of

positive symptoms of the detainee. After the interview, the detainee was

thanked for his participation and escorted by jail staff back to the intake

area.

Arrest data were obtained from Chicago Police Department records. Each

file contained the detainee’s “rap sheet,” itemizing his arrest and conviction

history. Charges incurred outside the county were routinely transcribed

from FBI and Illinois Bureau of Investigation (IBI) records onto the rap

sheet so that this procedure resulted in a relatively complete data set. For

each subject, we obtained the entire arrest history as well as data on arrests

incurred during the 3 years postinterview. Rap sheet history information

was unavailable for only 28 (less than 4 percent) of the subjects, and the

3-year followup data were unavailable for 40 (about 5.5 percent) of the

subjects.

The criminal history data involved mostly objective variables that required

low levels of coder inference. Nevertheless, for each data collection effort,

two research assistants coded the data for at least 2 weeks to gather the

data necessary to confirm the interrater reliability of the coding procedures.

Analysis of the reliability of the coding instrument revealed interrater reliability consistently above .90.

DEFINITION OF TERMS AND DATA MANAGEMENT

Drug and other mental disorders were based on DSM-III criteria and

assessed using the NIMH-DIS version III.

Drug Disorder

We categorized arrestees into four groups with respect to drug abuse or

dependence: (1) no drug disorder, (2) marijuana disorder only, (3) opiate

disorder only, or (4) polydrug disorder (excluding alcohol). Unfortunately,

the NIMH-DIS does not indicate whether drugs in a lifetime polydrug profile were actually used concurrently.

226
This four-tier approach omitted subjects who had a diagnosis of a single

drug other than marijuana or opiates (n=25 for lifetime; n=11 for current).

There were too few in each of those categories to include them in this

analysis, and there was no reasonable way to incorporate them into existing

categories. We defined current drug disorder as active within 1 year of the

interview.

Unlike the remaining disorders to be discussed, a detainee was considered

to be drug disordered irrespective of the severity of the disorder. This

means that subjects were diagnosed as drug disordered if they described a

pattern of abuse or a pattern of tolerance, along with interference with

social or emotional functioning.

Psychiatric Disorder

The psychiatric diagnostic categories were determined conservatively. To

meet criteria for a particular disorder, the subject had to attain the “definite”

or “severe” category (whichever was applicable); all “possible” or “mild”

cases were scored as absent. Disorders other than drug disorder were

considered to be current if symptoms were experienced within 2 weeks of

the interview. We categorized disorders using the following scheme:

(1) schizophrenic disorders, (2) major depressive or dysthymic disorders,

(3) alcohol abuse or dependence, and (4) antisocial personality disorder.

This scheme omitted all subjects who met criteria for manic episodes (n=16,

lifetime; n=9, current) and severe cognitive impairment (n=2). Cell size

limitations precluded their comprising independent categories, and there was

no reasonable way to collapse them into other diagnostic categories.

In our analyses, we ignored “exclusionary criteria” (Boyd et al. 1984)

because our goal was to examine explicitly the co-occurrence of symptom

constellations comprising disorders. For the same reason, we did not distinguish between primary and secondary onset of disorders. The NIMH-DIS

discriminates disorders that occur only in the context of a substance-induced

state, and we did not record diagnoses based on such symptoms as being

present.

The diagnosis of antisocial disorder included two questions directly related

to arrest and conviction history. This posed obvious confounding in the

exploration of prior criminal activity by diagnosis. Therefore, final models

in which antisocial disorder was a significant predictor were performed

twice-with and without these two criteria. Restricting the diagnostic criteria had only a very minor effect on the estimates. Therefore, the original

criteria were used for the presentation of results.

Lifetime occurrence of disorders was used to predict prior arrests; current

disorders were used to predict current and followup arrests.

227
Criminal Variables

Our criminal activity data included official arrest activity both prior to our

interview (past criminal activity) and during 3 years following our interview

(followup criminal activity). For the purposes of this study, violent crime

included murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, aggravated battery, unlawful restraint, aggravated assault, assault, battery, robbery, rape, and deviant sexual

assault.

A common problem in this type of research is controlling for the time

available to commit crime during the followup period (Blumstein and Cohen

1979; Blumstein et al. 1986). For example, a detainee who is in jail for 2

of the 3 followup years would (other things being equal) be less likely to

be rearrested than a person who was not free for all 3 years. For our

model predicting future arrests for violent crimes, we controlled for days

available for rearrest after jail or prison incarceration. Two factors were

subtracted from the 3-year followup period. First, the number of days spent

in jail postinterview corresponding to the current arrest were subtracted.

(These data were available from jail records). Once a detainee was released

from the jail, either after being found not guilty, bonding out, or after having completed his sentence, his time available for rearrest began. Second,

incarceration sentences (in days) received for any arrest taking place during

the 3-year followup period (these data are noted on the rap sheet) were also

subtracted. This period of time was an estimate, since detainees were often

released before their sentences elapsed. Because data on actual time served

by detainees were unavailable, we weighted sentences by the calculated

minimum sentence served by inmates in Illinois prisons based on Illinois

sentencing law for a 10-year sentence, .475 (Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority 1989). This figure is consistent with the national average

of percentage of time served in prison (Jamieson and Flanagan 1989).

Assuming a normal distribution around .475, our best estimate of the proportion of sentence served, some detainees will be available for rearrest

during their estimated time unavailable. This error will bias (reduce) our

estimate of the effect of “days out” on future violent crime. We include

days out in our model as a control variable. To the extent that days out

truly affects future violence and is correlated with the other exogenous

variables in our model, estimates of the other effects will be biased. This

bias is a function of the covariance of the proportion of sentence served and

the other exogenous variables. Despite these problems, this correction is

necessary to provide a better estimate of criminality.

Final Sample Size

Based on the aforementioned data management decisions, the fiil sample

was 678 for the analyses involving lifetime disorder and 675 for those

involving current disorder.

228
RESULTS

Predicting Past Arrest for Violent Crime

The first phase of data analysis focused on developing a model to examine

the role of psychopathology in the relationship between drug disorder and

past arrest for violent crime. Because the relationship between psychiatric

disorder and violent crime is probably influenced by a variety of factors

such as age, education, and race, and because detainees often have more

than one co-disorder, it is difficult to distinguish the effects of specific disorders on drug-crime relations. To address these issues, we examined these

relations in a multivariate context. Since the dependent variable was ratio

level (number of past arrests), we used weighted least squares regression

(WLS). WLS provides unbiased linear parameter estimates from stratified

samples.

The dependent variable was the natural log of the number of prior violent

crime arrests. We examined the following independent variables: three

lifetime drug dummy variables (marijuana only, opiate only, and polydrug;

the reference group was no drug disorder), lifetime schizophrenic disorder

(yes or no), lifetime depressive disorder (yes or no), lifetime alcohol-use

disorder (yes or no), and lifetime antisocial personality disorder (yes or no).

Linear and quadratic forms of centered (the mean was subtracted from each

case) age (Age, Age2) and years of education (Educ, Educ2) were included.

Race was effects coded (Cohen and Cohen 1983) such that the means for

Hispanics and whites were compared to those for the total sample. Interactions for drug by diagnosis and race by diagnosis effects were also tested.

The final model is reported in table 1. None of the drug disorders has a

significant effect on past arrests for violent crimes. Understandably, older

persons show more violent arrests, though the slope of this effect decreases

with each year of age as indicated by the negative Age2 coefficient. Education is inversely related to past arrest for violent crime. Antisocial personality disorder is positively associated with greater numbers of violent arrests.

On average, however, Hispanics have fewer violent crime arrests in their

past. Finally, depressed opiate users are less likely than others to have

violent-crime arrests in their pasts, as indicated by the negative Depression

by Opiate interaction term.

Predicting Future Arrest for Violent Crime

The second phase of data analysis focused on developing a model to predict

whether or not the detainee was arrested for a violent crime during the 3-

year followup period. We again examined these data in a multivariate context. Since the dependent variable (rearrested vs. not rearrested) is categorical, we used logistic regression. Logistic regression estimates the nonlinear

229
TABLE 1. Final WLS model predicting logged number of past arrests for

violent crime by 728 mail jail detainees

B Standard Error

Variable (slope) of B Beta F p

Marijuana -.05696 .06857 -.03254 .690 4065

Opiate Only .11527 .11474 .04135 1.009 .3154

Polydrug -010038 .08659 -.04638 1.344 .2468

Age .03812 .00524 .37873 52.890 .0000

Age2-.00252 .00032 -23986 22.535 .0000

Education -.08218 .01567 -.19571 27.500 .0000

Hispanic -.16439 .05264 -.11646 9.753 .0019

Antisocial Personality .19152 .05961 .12218 10.324 .0014

Opiate by Depression -54175 .27570 -.07614 3.861 .0498

Constant .73129 .07064 107.174 .0000

NOTE: Multiple r=.39024; r

2

=.15229.

Analysis of variance:

Regression

Residual

df

9

638

Sum of Squares Mean Square

62.45963 6.939%

346.61411 .52838

logistic effects of exogenous variables on the binary probabilities of the

response variable.

Variables included in the multivariate examination were the same as the

previous model with the addition of two variables: days available for rearrest (with sentences weighted as described earlier) and natural log of the

number of past arrests for violent crimes. Instead of lifetime disorder, we

used current drug and diagnostic disorders as predictors. Drug by diagnosis

and race by diagnosis interactions were also tested. Main effects of drug

variables were not available for removal in this selection procedure.

Table 2 shows the final logistic regression model and those factors that

significantly predict rearrest for violent crime. Logistic effects, partial

derivatives, and standard errors are reported. Reported partial derivatives

indicate the strength of the effect (the steepness of the slope), holding all

other effects constant, when the future arrest rate is 50 percent. The probability of future arrest for violent crime drops sharply with age and with education. This is especially true with education, as shown by the negative

Educ2 coefficient, in which the strength of this effect increases with each

year of education. Previous arrest for violent crimes is also a strong predictor of future arrest for violent crime. The same is true for days out of

jail; the more time available to commit a crime, the more likely there is to

be an arrest for a violent crime. Finally, the table indicates that opiate

230
disorder has a strong and negative effect on the probability of future arrest

for a violent crime. No other drug effect was a significant predictor of

arrest for violent crime.

TABLE 2. Final logistic regression model predicting arrest for violent

crime during 3-year followup by 728 male jail detainees

Variable

Regression

Coefficient

Standard Coefficient/

Error Standard Error

Marijuana Only -.0237 .0523 -.4538

Opiate Only -.1778 .0876 -2.0288

Polydrug -.0182 .0640 -.2840

Age -.0107 .0034 -3.1441

Education -.0450 .0195 -2.3037

Educ2

-.0074 .0032 -2.2791

Past Violent Arrests .2684 .0320 8.3999

Days Out .0460 .0090 5.1111

Constant -.8008 .0526 -15.2152

NOTE: Goodness-of-fit chi square=635.309; df=618; p=.306.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study were consistent with much of the literature predicting violent crime and shed some light on the drug-violence connection.

Poor education was a very strong predictor of both past and future violent

arrest. Poor intellectual ability has consistently been found to be predictive

of violence. Researchers have interpreted this relationship to be a result

of the reduced coping resources available to persons of low intelligence

(Klassen and O’Connor 1988a; Klassen and O’Connor 1988b; Hedlund et al.

1973; Langevin et al. 1987).

Increased age was also found to be predictive of the number of past violent

arrests. Having lived longer, older detainees have had more opportunity to

commit crimes. The age effect, however, diminishes with each year of age.

This reflects the high rate of violent crime among young detainees. For

future arrest, youth was a strong predictor. This finding is consistent with

the literature: violent crimes tend to be perpetrated by the young (Harry

and Steadman 1988, Holcomb and Ahr 1988; Klassen and O’Connor 1988a;

Klassen and O’Connor 1988b; Steadman et al. 1978).

231
We found no race effects, other than an inverse relationship between being

Hispanic and past violent arrests. Because our sample included so few Hispanics, further study is necessary before making any additional conclusions

regarding the relation between ethnicity and violence.

Neither schizophrenia nor depression predicted arrest for violence. These

findings were consistent with research on mental disorder and violence.

Monahan and Steadman (1983) have suggested that, after controlling for

variables known to correlate with crime and mental disorder (e.g., race and

social class), the relation between serious mental disorders (e.g., schizophrenia, major affective disorder) and crime disappear (Langevin et al.

1987). Interestingly, alcohol disorder also was not predictive of violence.

In contrast, antisocial personality disorder was a strong predictor of past

violent arrest, even after we removed the confounding diagnostic criteria

(arrest and conviction items). Antisocial personality did not, however,

predict subsequent arrest for violent crime. This may be because this

model also included an index of past violent crime arrests. The strong

correlation between past violent crime and subsequent violent crime (Harry

and Steadman 1988; Holcomb and Ahr 1988, Klassen and O’Connor 1988a;

Klassen and O’Connor 1988b; Shah 1978; Steadman et al. 1978) may have

obfuscated the relationship between the antisocial personality disorder and

subsequent crime.

In general, drug disorder, uncomplicated by other disorders, was inversely

related to violent crime. Our findings for the specific drug disorder profiles

were quite interesting. Researchers have found it difficult to establish the

connection between marijuana and crime because marijuana is often used in

conjunction with other drugs (Wish and Johnson 1986). We found, however, that when marijuana was the only drug used, it had no correlation

with violent crime. The relation between opiate use and violence has been

debated (Wish and Johnson 1986). We found that, after controlling for

other variables, pure opiate disorder lessened the likelihood of violent crime

arrest. Our findings concerning polydrug use were also intriguing. Drugcrime researchers have consistently found that the more drugs used (or the

greater the amount), the greater the criminal involvement (Chaiken and

Chaiken 1982; Wish et al. 1985). In contrast, we found that, within the

multivariate context, polydrug disorder did not predict violent crime arrests.

It is also important to note that the “days available” variable was critical to

the final model. Thus, this study confirms the importance of including

variables that control for the availability to commit crimes. Although this

would seem an obvious point, researchers often neglect to include this control variable.

232
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH

These findings suggest several directions for future research. First, these

data were collected before the cocaine epidemic. Cocaine is thought to

have a unique relation to criminal, possibly violent, behavior. Further work

is needed to expand our knowledge of cocaine addiction, co-occurring

psychopathology, and crime,

Second, official records are a limited, albeit convenient, indicator of violence. Thus, our models may be more predictive of drug-psychopathologyviolence interrelations among failed criminals (those who are caught) than

among the universe of offenders. Future researchers should attempt to use

a multi-indicator and cross-validational approach to measuring crime.

Third, further research is needed to extend our findings on racial and ethnic

differences.

Fourth, our sample, although fairly large, was not large enough to explore

the array of drug-use disorders. For example, although we were able to

examine the effect of pure opiate-use disorder on violent crime, the sample

was too small to explore barbiturate- or amphetamine-use disorders. Large

samples, although expensive, are needed to document correlations between

the specific drug-use profiles, psychopathological profiles, and crime.

Finally, future research should include both measures of use at the time of

the crime and measures of disorder. This will help distinguish between the

effects of disorder vs. the effects of drug intoxication on criminality.

Notwithstanding the need for further refinements, our results painted a consistent picture of the violent criminal within the parameters we selected. .

Essentially, it is the young, poorly educated, antisocial detainee with a violent past who is most likely to be involved in violent crime. This study

suggests that drug use per se is not predictive of arrest for violent crime;

opiate use seems even to mitigate against it. On the other hand, many drug

users are young, poorly educated, and antisocial and are likely to commit

violent crime.

Unfortunately, the psychiatric literature indicates that the presence, type, and

degree of psychopathology is at least as important as the category and frequency of drug use in determining treatment outcome with substance abusers. Generally speaking, psychopathology is associated with poorer treatment outcome for drug abuse. In particular, antisocial personality disorder

bodes poorly for treatment success among drug users. Thus, the very drug

users who are at risk for violent behavior are those most recalcitrant to

treatment.

233
CONCLUSION

In sum, this research indicates the importance of controlling for co-occurring psychopathology, especially antisocial personality disorder, when examining relations between drugs and violence. Many drug users also have

antisocial personality disorder. Although pure drug disorder is not predictive of violence, drug-disordered detainees who also meet criteria for antisocial personality disorder are particularly at risk for committing violent

crime.

We must refine our knowledge concerning the violent propensities of the

different diagnostic profiles. Ultimately, this information can be used

probabilistically, for example, to make probation, parole, and diversion

(treatment) decisions. In this way, we may balance our need to provide

treatment for the offender with our obligation to protect the safety and welfare of the public.

REFERENCES

Abram, K.M. The effect of co-occurring disorders on criminal careers:

Interaction of antisocial personality, alcoholism, and drug disorders. Int J

Law Psychiatry 12:133-148, 1989.

Abram, K.M., and Teplin, L.A. Co-occurring disorders among mentally ill

jail detainees: Implications for public policy. Submitted for publication.

Anthony, J.C.; Folstein, M.; Romanoski, A.J.; et al. Comparison of the lay

Diagnostic Interview Schedule and a standardized psychiatric diagnosis.

Arch Gen Psychiatry 42:667-675, 1985.

Bergman, H.C., and Harris, M. Substance abuse among young adult

chronic patients. Psychosoc Rehab J 9:49-54, 1985.

Black, T., and Spinks, P. Predicting outcomes of mentally disordered and

dangerous offenders. In: Farrington, D.P., and Tarling, R., eds. Prediction in Criminology. New York: State University of New York Press,

1985. pp. 174-192.

Blackbum, R. Patterns of personality deviation among violent offenders.

Br J Criminal 26(3):254-269, 1986.

Blumstein, A., and Cohen, J. Estimation of individual crime rates from

arrest records. J Crim Law Criminol 70(4):561-585, 1979.

Blumstein, A.; Cohen, J.; Roth, J.; and Visher, C., eds. Methodological

issues in criminal career research. In: Criminal Careers and "Career

Criminals.” Vol. I. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1986.

pp. 97-108.

Boyd, J.H.; Burke, J.D.; Gruenberg, E.; Holzer, C.E.; Rae, D.S.; George,

L.K.; Kamo, M.; Stoltzman, R.; McEvoy, L.; and Nestadt, G. Exclusion

criteria of DSM-III. A study of co-occurrence of hierarchy-free syndromes. Arch Gen Psychiatry 41:983-989, 1984.

234
Burke, J.D. Diagnostic categorization by the Diagnostic Interview Schedule

(DIS): A comparison with other methods of assessment. In Barrett, J.,

and Rose, R., eds. Mental Disorders in the Community. New York:

Guilford Press, 1986. pp. 255-285.

Chaiken, J.M., and Chaiken, M.R. Varieties of Criminal Behavior. Summary and Policy Implication. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation,

1982.

Cohen, J., and Cohen, P. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis

for the Behavioral Sciences. 2d ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, 1983.

Dembo, R.; Washburn, M.; Wish, E.D.; Schmeidler, J.; Getreu, A.; Berry,

E.; Williams, L.; and Blount, W.R. Further examination of the association between heavy marijuana use and crime among youths entering a

juvenile detention center. J Psychoactive Drugs 19(4):361-373, 1987.

Durbin, J.R.; Pasewark, R.A.; and Albers, D. Criminality and mental

illness: A study of arrest rates in a rural state. Am J Psychiatry

134(1):80-83, 1977.

Gandossy, R.P.; Williams, J.R.; Cohen, J.; and Harwood, H.J. Drugs and

Crime: A Survey and Analysis of the Literature. Washington, DC:

National Institute of Justice, 1980.

Giovannoni, J.M., and Gurel, L. Socially disruptive behavior of ex-mental

patients. Arch Gen Psychiatry 17:146-153, 1967.

Goldstein, P.J. The drugs/violence nexus: A tripartite conceptual framework. J Drug Issues 15(4):493-506, 1985.

Gropper, B. Probing the Links Between Drugs and Crime. National Institute of Justice Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1985.

Harry, B., and Steadman, H.J. Arrest rates of patients treated at a community mental health center. Hosp Community Psychiatry 39(8):862-866,

1988.

Hedlund, J.L.; Sletten, I.W.; Altman, H.; and Evenson, R.C. Prediction of

patients who are dangerous to others. J Clin Psychol 29:443-447, 1973.

Helzer, J.E.; Robins, L.N.; McEvoy, LT.; Spitznagel, E.L; Stoltzman, R.K.;

Farmer, A.; and Brockington, I.F. A comparison of clinical and Diagnostic Interview Schedule diagnoses. Arch Gen Psychiatry 42-657-666, 1985.

Holcomb, W.R., and Ahr, P.R. Arrest rates among young adult psychiatric

patients treated in inpatient and outpatient settings. Hosp Community

Psychiatry 39(1):52-57, 1988.

Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. Trends and Issues 89:

Criminal and Juvenile Justice in Illinois. Chicago: the Authority, 1989.

p. 146.

Inciardi, J.A., ed. The Drugs-Crime Connection. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage,

1981.

Jamieson, K.M., and Flanagan, T.J., eds. Sourcebook of Criminal Justice

Statistics, 1988. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1989.

Khantzian, E.J., and Treece, C. DSM-III psychiatric diagnosis of narcotic

addicts. Arch Gen Psychiatry 42(11):1067-1071, 1985.

235
Klassen, D., and O’Connor, W.A. A prospective study of predictors of violence in adult male mental health admissions. Law and Human Behavior

12(2):143-158, 1988a.

Klassen, D., and O’Connor, W.A. Crime, inpatient admissions and violence

among male mental patients. Int J Law Psychiatry 11:305-312, 1988b.

Langevin, R.; Ben- Aron, M; Wortzman, G.; Dickey, R.; and Handy, L.

Brain damage, diagnosis, and substance abuse among violent offenders.

Behav Sci Law 5(1):77-94, 1987.

Ling, W.; Holmes, E.D.; Post, G.R.; and Litaker, M.B. A systematic psychiatric study of heroin addicts. In: Proceedings of the Fifth National

Conference on Methadone Treatment. New York: National Association

for the Prevention of Addiction to Narcotics, 1973. pp. 429432.

McBride, D. Drugs and violence. In: Inciardi, J.A., ed. The DrugsCrime Connection. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981. pp. 105-123.

McBride, D., and McCoy, C.B. Crime and drug-using behavior: An areal

analysis. Criminology 19(2):281-302, 1981.

McLellan, A.T.; Druley, K.A.; and Carson, J.E. Evaluation of substance

abuse problems in a psychiatric hospital. J Clin Psychiatry 39:425-430,

1978.

Monahan, J.M., and Steadman, H.S. Crime and mental disorder: An epidemiological approach. In: Morris N., and Tonry, M., eds. Crime and

Justice: An Annual Review of Research. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1983. pp. 145-189.

Nurco, D.N.; Ball, J.C.; Shaffer, J.W.; and Hanlon, T.E. The criminality of

narcotic addicts. J Nerv Ment Dis 173:94-102, 1985.

O’Farrell, T.J.; Connors, G.J.; and Upper, D. Addictive behaviors among

hospitalized psychiatric patients. Addict Behav 8:329-333, 1984.

Rappeport, J.R., and Lassen G. Dangerousness—arrest rate comparisons of

discharged patients and the general population. Am J Psychiatry 121:776-

783, 1965.

Robins, LN. DSM-III/DIS-IIIA Diagnostic Programs. SAS computer program. St. Louis, MO: Washington University, 1985a.

Robins, L.N. Epidemiology: Reflections on testing the validity of psychiatric interviews. Arch Gen Psychiatry 9:918-924, 1985b.

Robins, LN.; Helzer, J.; Croughan, J.; and Ratcliff, K. National Institute of

Mental Health Diagnostic Interview Schedule: Its history, characteristics

and validity. Arch Gen Psychiatry 38:381-389, 1981b.

Robins, LN.; Helzer, J.; Croughan, J.; Williams, J.; and Spitzer, R. NIMH

Diagnostic Interview Schedule: Version III. Rockville, MD: National

Institute of Mental Health, Division of Biometry and Epidemiology,

1981a.

Robins, LN.; Helzer, J.E.; Ratcliff, K.; and Seyfried, W. Validity of the

Diagnostic Interview Schedule, Version II: DSM-III diagnoses. Psychol

Med 12:855-870, 1982.

Rounsaville, B.J.; Kosten, T.R.; Weissman, M.M.; and Kleber, H.D. Prognostic significance of psychopathology in treated opiate addicts. Arch

Gen Psychiatry 43:739-745, 1986.

236
Rounsaville, B.J.; Weissman, M.M.; Kleber, H.; and Wilber, C. Heterogeneity of psychiatric diagnosis in treated opiate addicts. Arch Gen

Psychiatry 39(2):161-166, 1982.

Shah, S. Dangerousness: A paradigm for exploring some issues in law

and psychology. Am Psychol 33:224-238, 1978.

Sosowsky, L. Crime and violence among mental patients reconsidered in

view of the new legal relationship between the state and the mentally ill.

Am J Psychiatry 135(1):33-42, 1978.

Steadman, H.J.; Cocozza, J.J.; and Melick, M.E. Explaining the increased

arrest rate among mental patients: The changing clientele of state hospitals. Am J Psychiatry 135(7):816-820, 1978.

Swett, C., Jr. History of street drug use: Relationship to diagnosis and

violent behavior among admissions to a prison hospital. J Prison Jail

Health 5(2):94-101, 1985.

Test, M.A.; Knoedler, W.H.; Allness, D.J.; and Burke, S.S. Characteristics

of young adults with schizophrenic disorders treated in the community.

Hosp Community Psychiatry 36:853-858, 1985.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Census of Local

Jails, 1988. Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., in press.

Weisman, C.P.; Anglin, M.D.; and Fischer, D.G. Differential MMPI profiles of white and Chicano narcotic addicts. Unpublished manuscript.

Wish, E.D.; Brady, E.; and Cuadrado, M. Drug use and crime in arrestees

in Manhattan. Presented at poster session of the 47th Annual Scientific

Meeting of the Committee on Problems of Drug Dependence, Baltimore,

June 11, 1985.

Wish, E.D., and Johnson, B.D. The impact of substance abuse on criminal

careers. In: Blumstein, A; Cohen, J.; Roth, J.; and Visher, C., eds.

Criminal Careers and “Career Criminals.” Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 1986. pp. 52-88.

Woody, G.E.; McLellan, T.; Luborsky, L; and O’Brien, C.P. Sociopathy

and psychotherapy outcome. Arch Gen Psychiatry 42(11):1081-1086,

1985.

Zitrin, A.; Hardesty, A.S.; Burdock, I.E.; and Drossman, A.K. Crime and

violence among mental patients. Am J Psychiatry 133(2):142-149, 1976.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by grant MH 37988 from the National Institute of

Mental Health and grant 87-IJ-CX-0033 from the National Institute of Justice, Dr. Linda A. Teplin, principal investigator. Dr. Gary McClelland, data

analyst, Northwestem University, assisted in analysis of data. The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document do not necessarily represent

the official positions or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice, the

National Institute of Justice, or the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services.

237
AUTHORS

Karen M. Abram, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Linda A. Teplin, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Psycho-legal Studies Program

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences

Northwestern University Medical School

and

Northwestern Memorial Hospital

215 East Chicago Avenue, Room 708

Chicago, IL 60611

238
Who’s Right: Different Outcomes

When Police and Scientists View

the Same Set of Homicide Events,

New York City, 1988

Patrick J. Ryan, Paul J. Goldstein, Henry H. Brownstein,

and Patrica A. Bellucci

INTRODUCTION

There is a surface logic in the phrase “Ask a cop.” If the reality of a

criminal event is to be known, it makes sense to go to those closest to the

event, the police--especially when the other actors are absent or uncooperative. On a broader plain, the police are logically the main source of data

for a quantitative depiction of crime in America. Although we recognize

that criminologists necessarily rely on police-supplied data, this chapter

questions that logic.

It seems clear that the police do not have a vested interest in research questions per se. For obvious reasons, the forensic elements in a criminal event

are of fundamental importance to the police. By highlighting quantifiable

differences between two separate depictions of the same set of homicide

events, the research reported here supports the view that the police rarely if

ever record information about criminal events in a way that would be useful

to a sociologist or criminologist.

This is not a one-way street. From the perspective of the police, there is

no cogent reason why crime data should be recorded in a way that would

be useful to a sociologist or criminologist. The police might argue correctly

that criminologically useful data should be the concern of criminologists.

Balancing the needs of the scientist with the organizational prerogatives of

the police is not a new issue in criminology nor is it under discussion here.

This discussion is about how different perspectives are likely to produce

different descriptions of reality, how each side brings to the matter under

239
study their own agenda, and how a different picture of “what happened”

will emerge depending upon whose information is analyzed.

The research project was charged, in part, with testing the feasibility of

including questions that address a specific scientific concern (drug relatedness of homicide) using methodology not unlike that of the Uniform Crime

Reports (UCR). The “Project” section below describes in detail how the

same events were recorded in two discrete sets of data. Briefly, the first

set contains “cold” data reported by the police on standardized forms. In

this data set, many replies to specific queries about the drug relatedness of

the homicide were often ambiguous, contradictory, or raised as many questions as they answered. In an effort to insure responses that were “usable”

in a scientific way, the police officers who had prepared the first set of

reports were subsequently interviewed. The reports were emended, and a

second data set was prepared.

While the overriding purpose of the research project is to discover “what

happened,” vis-a-vis homicide and drugs, this analysis suggests that the perception of reality inferred from police-reported crime data differs from the

perception of the same set of events by social scientists. (The first reports

of the larger study can be found in Goldstein et al. 1989, Brownstein et al.

1989; Ryan et al 1989.) The analysis looks not to validate either method

of collecting data. It merely demonstrates that differences do exist. A

comparison was made of the same set of homicide events when recorded by

the police with a like process that included researcher participation in the

form of “onsite” interviews. Serious differences were identified of which

the social scientist should be aware when using data for research purposes

that have been originally collected for other purposes-in this case, by the

police primarily for investigative purposes.

DRUGS AND HOMICIDE: NEED FOR UNIFORM DEFINITIONS

Homicide has been studied extensively. A decade of field work (Goldstein

1979; Johnson et al. 1985; Inciardi 1986) confirms reports in the scientific

literature and popular media about the ubiquitous presence of violence in

the drug scene. For example, an ultraconservative estimate that 2,000 of

the Nation’s 23,044 homicides in 1980 resulted from the use of drugs was

translated into a loss of about 70,000 life years (Goldstein and Hunt 1984).

A 1986 prison survey found that 28.3 percent of incarcerated murderers

were under the influence of a drug (excepting alcohol) at the time they

killed (Innes 1988). The Washington, DC, police reported that 57 percent

of that city’s homicides in 1987 were drug related. An estimated 60 percent of all homicides occurring in Queens, New York City, in 1988 were

drug related, compared with 38 percent for the city as a whole (James

1988).

240
The only consistency in reports such as these is the lack of it; first, in the

definitions of what constitutes a “drug-related” homicide, and second in the

methodologies used in collecting data on which the estimates are based.

According to one national daily, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

surveyed 1,161 law enforcement chiefs who “think” drugs are involved in

21 percent of all killings, and that, in cities of over 100,000 people, drugs

play a part in “40 or even 95 percent” of homicide events (USA Today

1987).

The operative term “think” and the range described by “or even” are frequently found in reports of the role drugs play in crime, particularly homicides. Granted, the police sources cited by USA Today do not directly

supply data to the UCR, but they do have a part in defining what their

agencies report. The wide-ranging estimates publicly announced by the

police chiefs draw attention to the effects of using different criteria to

define the issue, and how the data bases that rely on the police for sup

porting data may be critically affected.

Data used in criminological research are often based on the UCR and the

Supplemental Homicide Report (SHR). Although these are the most visible

sources of crime data in the country, inherent shortcomings in their collection processes make their usefulness problematic for scientific research

(Loftin 1986, Cook 1985). Gropper saw a critical need for data that would

“help provide sound informational bases for the guidance of public policies

directed toward the prevention and control of drug-related crime” (Gropper

1985, p. 3; Woodworth 1985, p. 4).

The development of an operational Incident-Based Reporting (IBR) system

for UCR data collection is a major step in this direction. It offers the potential for a national data base that would include detailed and specific information about drug involvement in criminal events. Drug-relatedness

information would be available at a level of detail heretofore unavailable

(Brownstein et al. 1989, Poggio et al. 1988). Loftin’s (1986) work in Baltimore and the work reported here are examples of the attention the scientific

community currently pays this issue.

That prior to the redesign of the UCR (Schlesinger 1985) the subject matter

of drugs was not specified in major national data collection efforts is a

major concern to those who study crime and drugs. The full implementation of the IBR and the redesign of the National Crime Survey bodes well

for researchers. An anticipated benefit of the redesign is the availability of

“data on crimes for which data traditionally have been lacking, namely

drug-related offenses, sex crimes, family violence and child abuse”

(Schlesinger 1985, p. 5).

At present, broad reporting categories and the omission of drug-related

items make it virtually impossible to determine, for example, whether the

241
offender or victim was a drug user, a trafficker, or other actor in the drug

distribution system; whether the pharmacological condition of either victim

or offender was related to the event; of if the underlying motive or circumstance was influenced by the economic demands of personal drug-use habits.

Goldstein and Brownstein (1987), Shellow (1976), and Weismann (1982)

discuss the need for this kind of data. Police reports to the UCR and SHR

data bases do not provide sufficient information for analyses at these levels.

Despite the fact that local officials may have much information concerning

the circumstances of a homicide or any other crime, they condense it into a

brief statement that is then used by another reporting level, usually the State

agency, to code the event within UCR or SHR definitions (Loftin 1986).

In many cases, researchers have turned to alternative data sources. For

example, in a controlled study of the synergistic effects of drugs and alcohol, Langevin et al. (1982) relied on psychiatric assessment records. A

study over 12 years of the drug and alcohol habits of drug addicts at

Lennox Hill Hospital in New York City was based on data from treatment

records (Vaillant 1971). In reporting a study of 71 convicted murderers,

Wilcox (1986) notes that previous work on characteristics of murders is

“anecdotal or described groups in mental hospitals or clinics,” and generally

used “computer compiled state arrest records, or prison population” files

(Wilcox 1986, p. 48). He relied on personal treatment records supplemented by court, police, district attorney, morgue, and legal defense sources.

Ellingwood (1971) used the case history method to study amphetamine

abuse and homicide. A review by Zahn and Bencivengo (1974) of drugusing and drug-nonusing victims of homicide was based on autopsy reports.

In all, these studies relied on other than information routinely supplied by

the police, resorting instead to readily available data sources. Temporally,

jurisdictionally, and data source specific, the generalizability of such studies

remains problematical.

Nevertheless, other locale-specific studies (Johnson 1989; Abel 1987;

Graham 1987; Gary 1986; Goldstein 1986; Goodman et al. 1986; Felson

and Steadman 1983; Montefore and Spitz 1975) and reports of drug use and

crime in the press (Gordon 1989; Martz et al. 1989; Molotsky 1988; Wolff

1988) suggest a strong association between drug use and criminal violence.

However, these studies also suffer from a lack of consistency in operational

definitions and theoretical conceptualizations. In tandem, the insufficiencies

of the national level data bases and poor standardization of concepts, definitions, and empirical indicators among studies using other data, hamper

efforts to do comparative research over time and among jurisdictions.

The quality of research data depends heavily on the quality of the methods

used to collect them. The problems noted above are not limited to crime

data. For example, Hopkins et al. (1989) compared the reported incidence

of cirrhosis of the liver attributed to alcohol as the cause of death in

Oregon, a State that employs a followup “querying” procedure, with the

242
reported incidence of those States that do not query. Although the State’s

per capita consumption of alcohol mirrors that of the Nation, alcoholattributed liver disease as a cause of death in Oregon was about twice that

of the Nation. Hopkins and colleagues conclude that “for mortality statistics to be of value as a national surveillance mechanism, it is important that

data be collected in a standard and consistent manner” (Hopkins et al. 1989,

p. 574). A similar argument could be made regarding crime statistics.

THE PROJECT

As part of an effort to understand better how drugs and violence are related, a series of research projects were designed that are theoretically based

on a tripartite conceptualization of the drugs-homicide nexus (Goldstein

1985). One of the projects (Goldstein and Brownstein 1987) found that

police departments did not record or maintain information about the drug

relatedness of homicides unless that information was directly relevant to

their investigation. Several law enforcement officials who participated in

the study suggested that detailed data about the drug relatedness of homicides could be obtained only if these data were collected on a continuing

basis, concurrent with police investigations. This suggestion led to the

development of the project discussed here; indeed, it was incorporated in

the research design as one of the project’s objectives.

Tripartite Conceptual Framework

The theoretical underpinnings of the research posit that drugs and violence

are related in three different ways: psychopharmacologically, economic

compulsively, and systemically.

Psychopharmacological. The psychopharmacological component suggests

that some people may au out in a violent fashion or become excitable or

irrational as a result of ingesting drugs. Drugs are also used to reduce nervousness or boost courage and thereby facilitate a criminal act. Psychopharmacological violence may also result from the irritability associated with

withdrawal symptoms. It may involve substance use by either victim or

perpetrator, and, for victims, a drug-induced physical condition may invite

criminal victimization.

Economic Compulsive. The economic compulsive component refers to

economic crimes committed to finance personal drug-use habits. Economic

compulsive crimes are either inherently violent, as in an armed robbery, or

the violence results from an unintended, extraneous factor such as the perpetrator’s nervousness, an unanticipated reaction by the victim, the intercession of bystanders, or the presence or absence of weapons carried by the

victim or perpetrator. Perpetrator motivation is the key to an economic

compulsive classification. Included in this category would be the crimes of

243
the stereotypical drug “fiend” who preys on the weak and innocent to support a drug-use habit.

Systemic. The systemic component refers to the normally aggressive patterns of interaction within the drug use and distribution system that are

typical of working or doing business in a black market. A noninclusive list

of systemic violence includes territorial disputes between rival dealers,

assaults, and homicides committed to enforce normative codes within a particular drug-dealing operation, robberies of drug dealers, executions of police

informants, retaliations for selling adulterated or bogus drugs, and assaults

and homicides to collect drug-related debts. Systemic violence may also

occur between users during disputes over drugs or drug paraphernalia.

The Data Collection Process

Police Organization-Geographic Selection of Sample. The New York

City Police Department (NYPD) divides the city into patrol zones or

(mainly an idiomatic distinction) detective divisions. Each zone includes

between three and six precincts. One zone was selected in each of four

boroughs (counties) in the city. Of the NYPD’s 75 precincts, 17 are in the

selected zones.

Rather than randomly select homicides for study (and then “chase down”

the investigating detective), it was decided to use the existing administrative

structure of the department with hierarchical controls that would assure a

high degree of compliance and facilitate training and distribution of materials. The selection of one zone in each borough allowed a representative

cross section, areas with both high and low homicide rates and a diversity

of social and ethnic characteristics, to be included in the sample. Except

for a higher concentration of lower socioeconomic-status (SES) areas in the

Brooklyn precincts, the selected areas represented a broad mix of demographic and SES characteristics. The project’s timeframe was 8 monthsMarch 1 to October 31, 1988. Data were collected on 414 homicide

events, involving 491 perpetrators and 436 victims. In 1988, 1,896 homicides occurred in New York City.

NYPD Cooperation—Investigative Protocol. Throughout New York City,

all detectives are required to follow the same procedures in recording the

progress of a homicide investigation. They routinely use a checklist of evidence secured, forms used, notifications, interviews conducted, and the like.

The data collection form was included as part of this “routine” paper work

in the selected zones. Having a research instrument included in an investigator’s “checklist” could not have been accomplished without the full support and endorsement of the study by the NYPD.

Detective Squad Commanders were allowed a fair degree of autonomy in

having the forms completed. Some chose to complete them personally,

244
while others delegated the task to their sergeants. A number of sergeants

passed the work to the detectives. The project director met frequently with

police personnel, reviewing each case to obtain as much information as was

possible and to clarify information already submitted.

It should be noted that the number and unpredictable frequency of homicides handled each year by any NYPD detective squad does not allow the

assignment of detectives to one case exclusively. For example, in

Brooklyn’s 75th Precinct, 1 sergeant and a team of 4 or 5 detectives investigated 100 homicides in 1988, a workload not matched by most police

departments.

The logistical problems of the 75th Precinct are mirrored by the other precincts studied, but for reasons other than number of cases. If a precinct

enjoys a relatively low homicide rate, detectives are assigned to investigate

other kinds of crime or the number of detectives assigned to the squad is

proportionally less than in the busier squads. It is not unusual for a team

of detectives (the only investigators working in the precinct at the time) to

be told to put a homicide investigation on hold and redirect their energies

to a missing person case or a just-reported bias incident. To the credit of

those detectives participating in the project, work quality did not appear to

suffer at the expense of numbers or the broad and diverse range of matters

investigated.

The work load and diverse assignments affected the submission of data in

one important way. The NYPD detectives always work in groups or

“teams” of two or more. One member of the team is “assigned” the case

and is thus responsible for all the related paper work. At times, some piece

of information is not secured by the assigned detective, and if it is to be recorded on paper, the detective must query the other team members. For

this reason, many of the reports submitted to the project were in fact a

“team” effort, a collaboration.

A Problem Yields Another Research Question. The methodology included a followup interview that was originally designed to respond to requests

for technical assistance. Examination of the early returns, however, indicated a number of incomplete responses and misunderstandings of the tripartite conceptualization. These early reports were gathered much the way the

department gathers the crime data it reports to the UCR. Collecting these

data would, standing alone, comprise a data base not unlike the UCR.

A valuable opportunity to expand the project’s scope lay hidden in what

was first seen as a problem. It was decided to leave the initial reports intact and to expand the purpose of the followup interview to gather another

set of data based on participant interviews. If the original reports were left

intact and if data describing the identical set of homicides could be gathered

245
in the interview process, a comparative analysis of two distinct sets of data

regarding the same subject matter could be made.

Data Analysis

The data was arranged bilaterally in two distinct sets of data. “File I” or

“Police Data” contains information as it was first supplied by the police

reporting on the homicide events. This method was akin to the way information was fed to the UCR and SHR. “File II” or “Scientist Data” contains information gathered in followup interviews by project staff.

In both cases, an identical set of homicides were examined, but the analysis

should not be confused with a time series methodology. Rather, it is a

two-pronged analysis that simultaneously examined data from two different

sources. The data in File I came from the police when left to their own

devices; File II data were provided by a social scientist who interviewed

the police. For this reason, the data in each set are arrayed using identical

variables. The only things that changed from one data set to the other were

the values in any particular cell.

By creating separate sets of data, it was possible to examine whether or not

reconstruction of the subject matter, the drug-relatedness of homicide, would

be significantly different when the police data were left unmolested from

when the data were collected by researchers. In the analysis, both data sets

were treated alike. What was done to one, e.g., classification and coding,

was done to the other.

Classification and Coding. The data collection form, among other items,

asks the reporting detective whether or not the event can be classified as

drug related, as not drug related, or if there is simply insufficient evidence

to make the determination. The police were also asked to indicate which of

the tripartite framework categories best described the event. Allowance was

made for multidimensional events in which more than one categorization

best described what happened.

A response to the “Drug Related or Not” question is a straightforward

“Yes” or “No” type. Conversely, classification of cases according to the

theoretical model is subject to broad interpretation, especially if the event

includes more than one category of drug relatedness.

For example, in a sex-related event in which the victim was high on drugs

and the offender was a trafficker, the person coding the event has to determine which element in the crime was the major contributor; in this case,

whether the victim’s drug use (psychopharmacological category) or the perpetrator’s connection to the drug distribution system (systemic category)

should serve as a basis for classification. The operational definitions of the

classification categories are conservative—evidence of a drug-related

246
interaction must clearly be part of the event. This posture precludes classification of cases based on a participant’s status, as a drug dealer, or prior

arrest record. If, for example, the coder determined that the event was primarily a sex-related crime, that neither the victim’s drug use nor the perpetrator’s occupation played a significant role, the case would be classified as

not drug related. The coding of events by the police within the tripartite

framework was not considered definitive for analytical purposes. The File I

data is a subset of the larger project and is used for comparative assessments of data sources. Assessment of the drug relatedness of homicides is

made using only the File II data.

The actual coding of cases (File II) involved two members of the research

team. First, each case was coded by the researcher who interviewed the

police. Then all completed forms were independently reviewed by a second

researcher. The two met and reviewed all the cases to arrive at an appropriate classification. In cases on which the researchers disagreed, followup

with detectives clarified the incidents and achieved consensus.

Differences Between the Data Sets. A caveat exists for the following

tables that show different “n’s” in places where the reader might expect

them to be the same. Table 1, for instance, contains 49 events in File I

and 59 events in File II. This is not a typographical error.

Recall that the data for File I were coded as they were reported. The data

were not examined for internal consistency nor were obvious contradictions

questioned. The national level data bases have no mechanism by which to

recover missing data or to question inconsistency, and the File I data were

meant to emulate that process. (The SHR is an attempt to emend the

UCR’s homicide file, but it too is not a complete record.) When the police

were interviewed in the process that produced the File II data, they gave

information that differed from their original assessment of the event. Simply put, the answers changed. Because of this, the frequencies for a given

variable could differ from the first data set to the second, from File I to

File II. These differences were the reason the analysis was undertaken.

The data collection form included 70 items with a response required for 288

items of information. The sheer number of responses served as a built-in

“lie scale.” For example, a “Yes” response to the item “Victim was high

on drugs at the time of the event” should be repeated in the “Is this event

drug related?” item, and a psychopharmacological classification would be

expected. If the respective items contradict each other, either the fact that

the victim was high did not contribute to the death or an error was made.

In the police-supplied data, internal consistency was a major problem area.

It was not a problem in the File II data for the simple reason that errors of

this type were questioned and corrected in the interview process.

247
Tripartite Dimensions. The foregoing description of how cases were

coded leaves room to speculate that perhaps drug-related elements might be

overlooked in the information retrieval stage. In the example of the sexrelated, thus not drug-related event, for instance, it might appear that the

datum of victim drug use or the perpetrator’s connection to the drug marketplace would not be retrieved, because it would be hidden by the primary

classification. This was not the case.

The survey instrument included a category designed to capture any facts

that were, standing alone, not sufficient evidence from which a primary

classification could be made but that did suggest that the event is part of

the drug scene. In most cases, a systemic event would have a systemic

dimension, a psychopharmacological one a like dimension, and so on. The

labels corresponded to the tripartite classification categories.

In certain cases, a creditable piece of drug-related information might be

known that would be lost if the dimension category were not available.

The dimension variable allowed a case primarily classified in one category

to contain a dimension describing another category of drug-relatedness. The

sex- but not drug-related example would be primarily classified “Not DrugRelated” with both ‘Psychopharmacological” (victim using) and “Systemic”

(perpetrator is trafficker) dimensions.

The reporting framework provided the background necessary to a complete

reading of the event. It captures the “transactional risks” that Zahn and

Bencivengo (1974) said make up such a large part of the subculture of

violence.

Internal Inconsistency. “Internal inconsistency” refers to responses within

a case that appeared to contradict other responses in the same case, e.g., an

item indicating that the victim used drugs would be countered by an indication that no drugs were involved in tbe event. The cases in table 1 were

selected from the respective data sets as having a “Yes” response that either

victim or perpetrator were high or irrational due to the ingestion of drugs or

alcohol. Table 1 demonstrates the inconsistency problem.

The Police Data Set (File l) identified 49 events in this variable. Table 1

shows the classification of these 49 events according to the tripartite conceptualization and the responses to the drug-related question. The police

classified only nine events as psychopharmacological. Indeed, for these 49

killings in which the data indicate that the use of drugs was present, the

File I data identified only 24 as “Drug Related”; the “Not Classified” case

in File I is a reporting error. The question of consistency in this example

arises from an intuitive sense that a larger number of cases in which an

actor was high should be called drug related and classified as psychopharmacological.

248
TABLE 1. Selected cases: “High or irrational due to drugs or alcohol”

File I File II

n=49 n=59

Is This Event Drug Related?

Not Drug Related

Do Not Know If Drug Related

Drug Related

20 (41%) 6 (10%)

4 (8%) 0

25 (51%) 53 (90%)

Classification

Psychopharmacological 9 29

Economic Compulsive 8 0

Systemic 3 9

Multidimensional 1 15

Not Classified 3 0

Reference to this type of inconsistency as a “problem” is done nonjudgmentally. The discussion below suggests that the police may indeed have compelling reasons for reporting information in a particular way and further that

an understanding of “what happened” was no less valid because police data

described the event than if the description was based on the “scientific”

data. This entire analysis is concerned more with the fact that the different

descriptions are possible than with the validity of either.

An examination of the File II side of table 1 emphasizes the power (and

quite different outcome) when the scientist gathers data firsthand. The File

II data were more consistent (at least to a social scientist). File I data

identified 10 fewer participants as high on drugs than did the File II data.

Parenthetically, the different n for each file might be confusing. At first,

one might ask, “How many participants were high, 49 or 59?” and “How

can the same table show two n’s?” The caveat above explains the differences. In each table, the data are arrayed to highlight the differences

between the two sets of data.

Table 1 is a matrix of the “High on Drugs” variable by the “Is This Case

Drug Related” and ‘Classification” variables. The values for each variable

are presented separately for each data set. It is important to realize that the

different depictions of “what happened” regarding the “Being High on

Drugs” variable arc equally true depending upon which source of data is

used.

249
For instance, the police data indicated that of 49 events in which someone

was high on drugs, 25 were drug related (51 percent), while the scientist’s

data indicated 53 of 59 such events were drug related (90 percent). Such

observations make it easier to understand how police chiefs can estimate

that 40 to 95 percent of homicides are drug related (USA Today 1987).

Returning to the consistency question, note in table 1 that the File I data

indicated that 9 of the 25 drug-related events were psychopharmacological.

These 49 cases were selected because at least one of the actors was high on

drugs or alcohol. Even a cursory examination would question why only

36 percent (9 of 25) of the “high on drugs” were recorded in the “using”

classification-what happened in the other events?

In what is seemingly a more consistent fashion, the File II data (table 1)

indicated, first, that more of the selected cases were drug related (File

I=51 percent; File II=90). These data then stated that of the 53 drug-related

events of this type, 55 percent (29 of 53) were clearly psychopharmacological and another 28 percent (15 of 53) contained more than one category and

are multidimensional. By recording them in the psychopharmacological or

multidimensional categories, the File II data accounted for 83 percent of

those events in which one of the actors was high on drugs. Comparatively,

when these two categories (psychopharmacological and multidimensional)

were combined for the File I data, less than half as many were similarly

accounted for. Without speaking to the validity of either data set, the

differences are remarkable.

More Differences. From observations such as this, it becomes apparent

that the police, when working independently, might unintentionally paint

quite a different picture of the drug relatedness of homicides, than when

interacting with a researcher. When the File II data were gathered, nothing

was changed that had not been agreed to by the police themselves. What

might have changed from the first data set to the next was the police perception of the importance of their replies. Once put on notice that their

work would be closely reviewed, most of the detectives interviewed reflected on their earlier responses and took time enough to consider items in the

survey instrument relative to each other. They acknowledged the contradictions, in many cases, as a function of responding to what they saw as isolated questions. That the responses would be reviewed came as a surprise.

It was perhaps, a “Hawthorne effect” at work.

A question on the collection form, “Is this event drug related?” sheds additional light on the issue of differences between data sets. Table 2 is simply

the response frequency in a single variable that asked: “Is this case drug

related?” Table 2 is simple but telling. It includes all cases.

About twice as many File I cases were in the “Do Not Know” category or

were left blank as in the File II data. “Do Not Know” is a legitimate

250
TABLE 2. “Is this case drug related?”

File I File II

n=414 n=414

Yes 168 (40.6%) 218 (52.7%)

No 165 (39.8%) 155 (37.4%)

Do Not Know 68 (16.4%) 41 (9.9%)

No Reply 13 (3.2%) 0 (0.0%)

response, but could the presence of an interviewer legitimately alter responses in half of a particular category? Possibly, the interview process

forced illegitimate responses not based on the available facts. Most of the

decreases in the “Do Not Know” category in File I were changes to the

drug-related category in File II. The major difference between the data is

the 40.8 percent vs. 52.7 percent assessment of the “Yes,” this is drugrelated, category.

It would appear a fairly straightforward matter to ask the detective investigating a homicide what drug played a primary role in the event, yet it

seems that drugs were not a prime consideration to the investigator.

Knowledge of what drug was involved apparently had value more for the

researcher than for the detective seeking forensic evidence.

The responses in the police data set to the question of what type of drug

was involved in the event appear to be haphazardly made (table 3). This

was probably a function of replying on an impersonal form and being left

to one’s own devices, for when asked the same questions in person, the

responses were certainly adequate. The note in table 3 helps to explain the

“haphazard” surmise: If an event is classified as not drug related, why is a

drug named as being involved?

The overreporting type of discrepancy shown in table 3 can be partly accounted for by considering the use of the “dimension” category described

above. Using the same example of a sex-related but not drug-related event

that also includes a drug-related dimension, it would be consistent to record

a drug involved. This did occur. More often however, the discrepancy was

confounded by omissions of the drug involved when the case was classified

as drug related-not shown in the table 3 data (File I) are 86 cases identified as drug related in which no drug was named.

File I data in tables 2 and 3 show that although 168 events were said to

be drug related, a drug was said to be involved in 187 events. This

251
TABLE 3. Primary drug involved in drug-related events

Drug Involved

File I File II

n=187* n=218

Cocaine 23 (12.3%) 48 (22.0%)

clack 50 (26.7%) 118 (54.1%)

Alcohol 7 (3.7%) 21 (9.6%)

Marijuana 2 (1.1%) 7 (3.2%)

Heroin 3 (1.6%) 3 (1.4%)

Multiple Drugs 5 (2.7%) 18 (8.3%)

Unknown/No Reply 97 (51.9%) 3 (1.4%)

*There were 168 events recorded in File I as drug related (see table 2). Nineteen cases listed as

“Not Drug Related” or “Unknown” in File I did, however, record a drug as being involved.

discrepancy is repeated in table 4 (File I) in which 177 events were recorded as being in one of the drug-related primary classifications defined by the

tripartite conceptualization.

TABLE 4. Tripartite conceptual framework-primary classification

File I File II

Classification n=l77* n=218

Psychopharmacological 19 (10.7%) 31 (14.2%)

Economic Compulsive 50 (28.3%) 8 (3.7%)

Systemic 62 (35.0%) 162 (74.3%)

Multidimensional 16 (9.0%) 17 (7.8%)

Other Drug Related 30 (17.0%) 0

*There are only 168 events recorded in File I data as drug related. Some of the cases listed as “Not

Drug Related” or “Unknown” do, however, record tripartite classifications.

The differences that appear in tables 3 and 4 further support the premise

made above that a different depiction of “what happened” will be made dependent upon which data source is used.

The differences in table 4 between File I (35 percent) and File II (74.3 percent) systemic events is striking. Table 3 shows cocaine and crack as the

primary drug in 29 percent of the drug-related cases in File I, but File II

data indicated 76.1 percent involved cocaine and crack. Fully 51.9 percent

252
of the File I events recorded no drug. In File II, this was a manageable

3 percent.

At a time when the nation is mounting an all-out war on the distribution

system that delivers cocaine and crack to our streets (Walton, unpublished),

such disparate assessments of the role systemic violence plays in homicide

would tend to muddy rather than clarify the issue. Further, the File I data

in table 4 support the dope “fiend” myth in the share assigned to the economic compulsive category (28.3 percent). The File II data glaringly contradict the “fiend” inference with a reported 3.7 percent events in this

category.

The variables shown in tables 1 through 4 contain verbiage, definitions,

conceptualization, and purpose not normally part of the police lexicon. It is

not that most police could not understand interpretive schema; most of the

detectives involved in this research just were not interested. More than

once they indicated a willingness to share information that had been routinely collected as part of the investigation, but had not been specifically requested. Equally often they demurred when asked to fit their knowledge

into the tripartite conceptualization. Without having tested how this posture

affected the data supplied, it would be conjectural to impute a rationale.

Table 5 illustrates the differences in classification.

TABLE 5. Selected differences combined

FILE I FILE II

Table 2 168 “Yes” Drug Related 218

Table 3 90 Drug Involved Named 215

Table 4 177 Drug-Related Classification 218

Plainly the respective constructs of these homicides are dramatically unequal, but it would be wrong to dismiss the inconsistencies in the File I

data as lack of attention to detail or an occupationally based prejudice

against research and paper work in general. More likely the differences are

so easily told simply because the researcher is doing the telling.

In other words, the File II data were gathered by the people who designed

the survey instrument. They know intimately what each category connotes,

what the expected responses should be, and even that a particular response

in one category should trigger a certain response in another. As the

comparative review moved to matters more related to forensic issues, the

difference between the two data files lessened.

253
The notable changes from the first data set in the “Circumstance” variable

(table 6) are in the areas of “Other or Undetermined” and “Drug Transaction.” Table 6 shows that the “Other” circumstances decreased from 110

in File I to 74 in File II. The lion’s share of the changed responses went

to the “Drug Transaction” category: File I=92 and File II=127. The

increase to 127 events in the drug deal category is not as dramatic as first

appears nor as are the differences noted in tables 1 to 4 (see table 5).

TABLE 6. Events by circumstance

Circumstance

File I File II

n=414 n=414

Robbery 58 (14.0%) 70 (16.9%)

Other Crime Related 30 (7.3%) 16 (3.9%)

Dispute 121 (29.2%) 124 (29.9%)

Drug Transaction 92 (22.2%) 127 (30.7%)

Police Officer Killed 3 (.7%) 3 (.7%)

Other or Undetermined 110 (26.6%) 74 (17.9%)

The police make use of open-ended categories in a way that becomes a

critical consideration in the interpretation stage of this kind of research.

The changes in table 6 noted above and in table 7 below, reflect a broad

use of “Other” categories. Throughout the collection form a category

“Other” is provided for unanticipated elements. In every item labeled

“Other,” a “Specify” block is included. If “Other circumstance” is

indicated, the “Specify” block asks that the circumstance be named.

Thirty-six times when the “Other, Specify ” item was used in the

circumstance variable, the available choices, robbery, dispute, etc., would

have adequately covered the information provided by the police as “specified.” Most often, more information than necessary was provided.

Expansion of the “Other” category was not limited to “Circumstance.” As

an example, the classification section provides for “Systemic” and “Other

Drug Related,” along with the other categories. For a case that was clearly

systemic, detectives would leave the “Systemic” category blank, indicate

“Other,” and add a “specific,” such as, the case involved the robbery of

drug dealers by other drug dealers. The definition of systemic unmistakably

includes this kind of crime; using the “Other” category was superfluous.

In the same “Specify” box on the collection form, perhaps for emphasis or

because the fact merely struck a fancy, the detectives would add another bit

254
of information regarding the type of weapon used, or the location (dry

cleaners used to launder money), or an actor (she was a street gal who

traded sex for drugs). None of this information was either gratuitous or

irrelevant, but was recorded in the “wrong” place. The collection instrument provided other places for most of the information provided via the

“Other” item. In other words, most of the differences (36 cases) recorded

as “Drug Transaction” are found in File I data as “Other or Undetermined,”

with the drug deal element recorded in the “Other, Specify ” item.

The penchant of detectives to expand in this way on the questions asked

provided an unexpected benefit. A number of the “Other” entries contained

the type of information someone not “on the scene” could have anticipated.

The comments are insightful and will be used in qualitative reports and for

purposes of revising the methodology.

Examination of variables that included information seen by the police as

more useful forensically indicated that the level of agreement between the

data sets would converge in variables defining what was perceived by the

police as more meaningful information. Tables 7, 8, and 9 describe this

type of information. The elements are use specific and material to the

successful clearing of a case.

TABLE 7. Events by weapons and means used

File I

Weapon Used n=414

File II

n=414

Firearms 285 (68.8%) 283 (68.4%)

Knife or Cutting Tool 83 (20.1%) 81 (19.5%)

Physical Force 20 (4.8%) 29 (7.0%)

Blunt Instrument 17 (4.1%) 14 (3.4%)

Other Means 9 (2.2%) 7 (1.7%)

Among tables 7, 8, and 9, the largest difference is found in table 8 in the

“Undetermined” category. Similar to the changes noted above regarding the

movement in table 5 of a number of events from “Other” to “Drug Transaction” (and probably for the same reasons), the changes in table 8 are

from the “Undetermined” to the “Drug Business Relation” or “Friend” categories. Once again, these categories tend to be more ambiguous and subject to easier misinterpretation than are the other pieces of information.

This phenomenon is not at all unusual.

255
TABLE 8. Events by victim-perpetrator relationship

File I

Relationship n=414

File II

n=414

Spouse/Boyfriend, Girlfriend

Child, Parent, Sibling

Friend, Neighbor, Acquaintance

Drug Business Relation

Police Officer

Stranger

Innocent Bystander

Undetermined

Not Available

26 (6.3%)

12 (2.9%)

82 (19.8%)

33 (8.0%)

4 (.9%)

72 (17.4%)

0

178 (43.0%)

7 (1.7%)

26 (6.3%)

12 (2.9%)

104 (25.1%)

112 (27.0%)

5 (1.2%)

88 (21.3%)

5 (1.2%)

62 (15.0%)

0

TABLE 9. Events by location of occurrence

Location

File I File II

n=414 n=414

Vacant Building 5 (1.2%) 5 (1.2%)

Bar 2 (.5%) 2 (5%)

Commercial Site 12 (2.9%) 15 (3.6%)

street 181 (43.7%) 185 (44.7%)

other Public Area 31 (7.5%) 34 (8.2%)

Transit Facilities 2 (.5%) 2 (.5%)

Victim’s Residence 83 (20.1%) 80 (19.3%)

Perpetrator’s Residence 22 (5.3%) 15 (3.6%)

Victim’s and Perpetrator’s Residence 8 (1.9%) 12 (2.9%)

Other Residence 37 (8.9%) 38 (9.2%)

Other Location 31 (7.5%) 26 (6.3%)

Cicourel said he is “interested in how we assign unequivocal meaning to”

the subject matter of scientific research (Cicourel 1968, p. 3). He noted

that provided two observers were from the same culture they could agree on

the definition of a table or chair, but as the subject matter became more

complicated, “fixed choice” categories in survey instruments tended to confuse more than enlighten. The fact that the other items throughout the three

256
tables showed a reasonable level of agreement supports Cicourel’s observation and the contentions made above.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The differences found between the two data sources raise the following

questions: Are the police a valid source of information upon which to base

scientific inquiry about crime? Is there an inherent bias in data gathered

from agencies whose primary reasons for collecting are not compatible with

the masons data are collected by social scientists?

Seeking answers to these questions requires that an examination be made of

the manner in which police collect and process information. Like most

occupational groups, there is reason to believe that the police record, catalogue, and return information in a manner consistent with their needs.

When a detective reconstructs the scene of a crime, the purpose and manner

for which information is collected is well defined-clearance of the case—

but is often at odds with the purposes for which a social scientist would

collect the same information.

For example, a detective sergeant replied, “What’s the address?” when he

was asked, “What is the primary drug involved in this homicide?” In his

mind, apparently, drug-use information was catalogued geographically. For

him, if the homicide occurred south of X street, the primary drug involved

was, perhaps, cocaine; if north of that street, the drug involved was, perhaps, heroin. In either case, the datum of which drug was actually involved

has been lost in the utilitarian or “use-specific” cataloguing of information

by the individual officer.

Similarly, the fact that a victim or offender is described as a crack dealer

tells the investigating officer not that crack distribution is an important piece

of forensic information but that a series of known associates are available

for questioning or that certain other pertinent information should be examined. When the police apply the cognomen “crack dealer” or “heroin

dealer” to someone, it is done more to describe a particular string of prior

known facts about the criminal environment in which he or she acts than to

describe the drug-use habits of the individual referred to. Just as easily

substituted for “crack dealer” and equally informative (for police purposes)

is a geographic term. “The gang south of X street” says as much to a

detective as does “crack dealer.”

Even when the efforts to emend the collection process of the national data

bases are successful, handling of the collected information by the supplying

agency will subject it to interpretative bias. This is generally due to the

fact that police organizations are hierarchical and the flow of information, in

the form of memoranda, directives, general orders, and the like, is from the

top downward.

257
At the operational level, organizational dicta require police officers to record

information much as the telephone company lists names and addresses—

“individual by individual, to be filed, alphabetically, and consulted only

when somebody needs to ‘look something up.'" (Wilson 1978, pp. 62-63).

Upward communication is minimal, mainly because, as Manning sees it,

much of the information available “is retained by lower [ranking] participants primarily as a means of self-protection” (Manning 1977, p. 267). The

self-protectionism identifiable in the lower ranks is tacit but apparent in the

more general organizational posture, and the latter most probably facilitate

the former.

Although Bittner was concerned with uniformed officers, his observation

that “the overriding rule is that no one tells anybody else more than he

absolutely has to” (Bittner 1980, p. 64) has particular poignancy when

applied to detectives. The primary purpose of detectives’ investigations are

to develop information that has good forensic value. Information is shared

on an “as needed” basis to proceed with an arrest or conviction and is only

reluctantly shared with other detectives and more reluctantly with outsiders.

To the list of “qualities” a good investigator must have, in which Cohen

and Chaiken (1987) put “gathering information” as the first, Skolnick (1986)

added that facts must be found in a way that allows them to be used in

evidence. Reiss (1971) said that quite often fact finding involves the locating, more than the identification, of an offender. Functionally, detectives

gather information for evidence that locates rather than identifies. The geographic classification of drug-use habits and distribution systems, or the

“crack dealer” nickname being used to describe what most others perceive

as specific characteristics requiring discrete labels is a common practice.

This process is akin to a classification system in which the arrangement of

entities into groups is according to some system, some set of principles, or

preordained rules (Gottfredson 1987). The characteristics that identify a

group are subject to varied interpretation, misunderstanding, and reliability.

For an innocent to be “with” a criminal is often to be classed as one, regardless of the reality that the only criminality present is in the associate

(Goffman 1963). It is seldom with malicious intent that the police make

such use of information. Rather it is a functional and purposeful technique

supported both by individual conditioning and organizational practice.

Synergistically, organizational demands, the self-protection and control of

information, and a “use-specific” purpose found in the police processing of

information create a retrieval system that by its very nature tends to minimize, for scientific purposes, the validity of the subject matter being examined. What is on the surface a supposedly descriptive process is actually a

combination of individual interpretation and pragmatism, and the information

258
from which good descriptive data should flow is, at best, only reluctantly

shared with other than its owner. The data seem to reflect this.

The question of a comparable bias in the research data is not one that can

be ignored. The neutrality of the specific research variables used in the

type of study reported here should be a function of their ability to reflect

the association between homicide and drugs, uncomplicated by other interests. Assurance of such objectivity is at best a difficult task.

Social science is not free of role conflicts within the researcher (Rabow

1980). Neutrality is a convention accepted for the sake of convenience in

the evaluation of social science research in the hope that “mutual inspection” within the profession will suffice to keep social scientists honest

(Gouldner 1968). Hagen (1982) recommended that a decision be made before the research begins regarding the level of commitment the analysts will

bring to the task of negotiating the role conflicts that may occur when

scientists work in close contact with practitioners. Probably, the type of

conflict Hagen and Rabow were concerned with was an alteration of the

methodological design that mixed theory with ideology and one or both

with operational purposes. Nonetheless, the possibility of researcher bias is

not limited to design problems.

Just as the police have a use-specific reason for gathering data, researchers

justify their selection of one variable over another or their operational definition of particular variables in terms most easily understood by other sociologists, with all the connotative baggage that implies.

For example, the need for Wolfgang (1975) to separate his sample into

“violent” and “nonviolent” homicides makes perfect sense to a social scientist. A person who would stab a victim one single time in a fit of passion

requires, for analytical purposes, differentiation from the person who would

repeatedly stab and brutalize a victim. The distinction is not so intelligible

and clear-cut to the citizen or police officer who might ask: “What is a

nonviolent homicidal stabbing?” Luckenbill (1977), separately supported by

Block (1985) and Cheatwood (1988), explains that the person who survives

a homicidal assault can actually be the victim, while the offending party lies

in the morgue. This is a perfectly understandable distinction to those who

have studied the interactionist perspective.

It should be kept in mind that the police perception of criminal events and

the social scientist perception both may contain a potential bias effect, and

neither might be said to truly depict reality. This particular issue will be

further examined as the current research continues. It merits study by

others.

259
APPENDIX A: Homicide Counts and Rates (per 100,000)

Year

united states New York State

Number Rate* Number Rate*

New York City

Number Rate*

1988 20,675 8.4 2,240 12.5 1,895 25.8

1987 20,096 8.3 2,007 11.3 1,672 23.0

1986 20,613 8.6 1,909 10.7 1,582 22.0

1985 18,976 7.9 1,688 9.5 1,384 19.3

1984 18,692 7.9 1,777 10.0 1,446 20.2

1983 19,308 8.3 1,951 11.1 1,622 22.9

1982 21,012 9.1 2,011 11.5 1,668 23.6

1981 22,516 9.8 5171 12.4 1,826 25.8

1980 23,044 10.2 2,225 12.7 1,814 25.8

1979 21,456 9.7 2,094 11.7 1,733 24.0

1978 19,355 9.0 1,818 10.2 1,508 20.5

1977 19,120 8.8 1,913 10.4 1,553 20.5

1976 18,780 8.8 1,978 10.7 1,622 21.4

1975 20,510 9.6 1,981 10.8 1,645 21.7

1974 20,600 9.7 1,931 10.6 1,557 19.7

1973 19,510 9.3 2,086 11.4 1,681 21.3

1972 18,520 8.9 5,057 113 1,693 21.4

1971 17,630 8.5 1,831 10.0 1,469 18.6

1970 15,860 7.8 1,490 8.2 1,159 14.7

1699 14,590 7.8 1,406 8.4 1,114 14.3

SOURCE: Basal on data in Annual Reports, Bureau of Criminal Justice Statistics Services, Albany:

Department of Criminal Justice Servicess and in Uniform Crime Reports—Crime in the

United States, Washington, DC: US. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

REFERENCES

Abel, E.L Drugs and homicide in Erie County, New York. Int J Addict

22:195-200, 1987.

Bittner, E. The Functions of the Police in Modern Society. Cambridge,

MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn, and Hain, 1980.

Block, C.R. Lethal Violence in Chicago Over Seventeen Years: Homicides

Known to the Police, 1965-1981. Chicago: Illinois CJIA, 1985.

Brownstein, H.H.; Goldstein, P.J.; Ryan, P.J.; and Bellucci, P.A. Homicide

and Drug Trafficking. Presented to the annual meeting of the Society for

the Study of Social Problems, Berkeley, CA, August 1989.

260
Brownstein, H.H.; Goldstein, P.J.; Ryan, P.J.; and Bellucci, P.A. Drug

related homicide in New York State. National Institute of Justice

Research In Brief, in press.

Cheatwood, D. Is there a season for homicide? Criminology 26:287-306,

1988.

Cicourel, A.V. The Social Organization Of Juvenile Justice. New York:

Wiley, 1968.

Cohen, B., and Chaiken, J. Investigators Who Perform Well. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1987.

Cook, P.J. Is robbery becoming more violent: An analysis of robbery

murder trends since 1968. J Crim Law Criminol 76(2):480-489, 1985.

Ellingwood, E.H., Jr. Assault and homicide associated with amphetamine

abuse. Am J Psychiatry 127(9):90-85, 1971.

Felson, F.B., and Steadman, H.J. Situational factors leading to criminal

violence. Criminology 21:59-74, 1983.

Gary, L.E. Drinking, homicide, and the black male. J Black Stud 17:15-

31, 1986.

Goffman, E. Stigma Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1963.

Goldstein, P.J. Prostitution and Drugs. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books,

1979.

Goldstein, P.J. The drugs-violence nexus: A tripartite conceptual framework. J Drug Issues 14:493-506, 1985.

Goldstein, PJ. Homicide related to drug traffic. Bull NY Acad Med

62(5):509-516, 1986.

Goldstein, PJ., and Brownstein, H.H. Drug related crime analysis-homicide. Report to National Institute of Justice, Drugs Alcohol and Crime

Program, 1987.

Goldstein, PJ.; Brownstein, H.H.; Ryan, P.J.; and Bellucci, P.A. Crack and

homicide in New York City. A conceptually based event analysis. Contemp Drug Probl 16(4):6651-687, 1989.

Goldstein, P.J., and Hunt, D. The impact of drugs on the health of the

Nation. Report to Carter Center. Atlanta: Emory University, 1984.

Goodman, R.A.; Mercy, J.A.; Laya, F.; Rosenberg, ML.; Smith, J.C.; Allen,

N.H.; Vargas, L.; and Kolts, R. Alcohol use and interpersonal violence:

Alcohol detected in homicide victims. Am J Public Health 76:144-149,

1986.

Gordon, C. Rochester faces image of violence. Rochester Democrat and

Chronicle. January 15, 1989. p. 1.

Gottfredson, D.M. Prediction and classification in criminal justice decision

making. In: Gottfredson, D.M., and Tonry, M., eds. Prediction and

Classificatiun. Vol. 9. In: Tomry, M., and Morris, N., eds. Crime and

Justice: A Review of Research. Chicago: Chicago University, 1987.

pp. 1-20.

Gouldner, A.W. The sociologist as partisan: Sociology and the welfare

state. Am Sociologist 3:103-116, 1968.

Graham, M.C. Controlling drug abuse and crime: A research update. NIJ

Reports March/April, 1987.

261
Gropper, B.A. Probing the links between drugs and crime. National Institute of Justice Research in Brief, February 1985.

Hagen, F.E. Research Methods in Criminal Justice and Criminology. New

York: MacMillian, 1982.

Hopkins, D.D.; Grant-Worley, J.A.; and Bollinger, T.L. Survey of cause-ofdeath query criteria used by State vital statistics programs in the U.S. and

the efficacy of the criteria used by the Oregon Vital Statistics Program.

Am J Public Health 79(5):570-574, 1989.

Inciardi, J. The drugs crime connection. In: Inciardi, J., ed. The War on

Drugs: Heroin, Cocaine, and Public Policy. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield,

1986. pp. 115-430.

Innes, C.A. State prison inmate survey, 1986: Drug use and crime.

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report, July 1988.

James, G. Crime totals confirm feats in Queens. New York Times, April

21, 1988. pp. B1, B6.

Johnson, B.D.; Goldstein, P.J.; Preble, E.; Schmeidler, J.; Lipton, D.S.;

Spunt, B.; and Miller, T. Taking Care of Business: The Economics of

Crime by Heroin Abusers. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1985.

Johnson, C. Homicide linked to drug use in the District of Columbia. The

CJSA Forum 7(1):4-6, 1989.

Langevin, R.; Paitich, D.; Orchard, B.; Handy, L.; and Russon, A. The role

of alcohol, drugs, suicide attempts and situational strains in homicide

committed by offenders seen for psychiatric assessment. Acta Psychiatr

Scand 66(3):229-242, 1982.

Loftin, C. The validity of robbery-murder classifications in Baltimore.

Violence Victims 1(3):191-203, 1986.

Luckenbill, D.F. Criminal homicide as a situated transaction. Soc Probl

25(2):176-186, 1977.

Manning, P.K. Police Work The Social Organization of Policing. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1977.

Martz, L.; Miller, M.; Hutchinson, S.; Emerson, T.; and Washington, F. A

tide of drug killing. Newsweek, January 16, 1989. pp. 44-45.

Molotsky, I. Capital’s homicide rate is at a record. New York Times,

October 30, 1988.

Montefore, J., and Spitz, M. Narcotics abuse among homicides in Detroit.

J Forensic Sci 20:186-190, 1975.

Poggio, E.C.; Kennedy, S.D.; Chaiiken, J.M.; and Carlson, K.E. Blueprint

for the Future of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1988.

Rabow, J. Research and rehabilitation: The conflict of scientific and treatment roles in corrections. In: Talarico, S.M., ed. Criminal Justice Research: Approaches, Problems and Policy. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson,

1980.

Reiss, A.J., Jr. The Police and the Public. New Haven: Yale University,

1971.

262
Ryan, P.J. Bias in the processing of crime data: A comparison of police

and social scientist constructs of the drug/homicide nexus. Dissertation

for City University of New York. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms

International, 1990.

Ryan, P.J.; Goldstein, P.J.; Brownstein, H.H.; and Bellucci, P.A. Homicide

and Drugs: New York City, 1988. Presented at the annual meeting of

the American Society of Criminology, Reno, NV, November 1989.

Schlesinger, S.R. Redesign of the National Crime Survey and the Uniform

Crime Reporting Program. In: Woodworth, S.S., ed. Proceedings of the

Third Workshop on Law and Justice Statistice. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1985 pp. l-5.

Shellow, R. Drug abuse and crime: Fact or fancy? J Drug Issues 6:131-

147, 1976.

Skolnick, J. Justice Without Trial. 2d ed. New York: MacMillan, 1986.

USA Today. Drug related homicide. April 14, 1987. p. 12.

Vaillant, G.E. A twelve-year follow-up of New York narcotic addicts: The

relation of treatment to outcome. Am J Psychiatry 122(7):727-737, 1966.

Walton, R. Address to National Institute on Drug Abase, Technical Review.

Washington, DC, September 25, 1989.

Wiesmann, J.C. Understanding the drugs and crime connection. In:

Wiesmann, J.C., and Du Pont, R.L, eds. Criminal Justice and Drugs:

The Unsolved Connection. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat, 1982.

pp. 42-73.

Wilcox, D.E. Characteristics of seventy one convicted murderers. Am J

Forensic Psychiatry 7(2):48-52, 1986.

Wilson, J.Q. Varieties of Police Behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University,

1978.

Wolff, C. As drug trade rises in Hartford, so does violent crime. New

York Times, June 14, 1988. pp. A1, B4.

Wolfgang, M. Patterns in criminal homicide. Patterson Smith Series in

Criminology, Law Enforcement and Social Problems, No. 211. Montclair,

NJ: Patterson Smith, 1975.

Woodworth, G.G., ed. Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Law and

Justice Statistics, 1985. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1985.

Zahn, M., and Bencivengo, M. Violent death: A comparison between drug

users and non-users. Addict Dir 1:283-296, 1974.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research is supported by a National Institute of Justice grant, “Drug

Related Crime Analyses—Homicide 2,” 87-IJ-CX-0046. Points of view or

opinions presented do not necessarily represent the official position or

policies of the United States Government, the New York State Government,

or Narcotic and Drug Research, Inc. The authors gratefully acknowledge

the guidance and support of Bernard Gropper, Ph.D., who manages the

Drugs and Crime Program of the National Institute of Justice.

263
AUTHORS

Patrick J. Ryan, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Department of Criminal Justice

Long Island University—C.W. Post

Greenvale, NY 11548

Paul J. Goldstein, Ph.D.

Narcotic and Drug Research, Inc.

11 Beach Street

New York, NY 11103

Henry H. Brownstein, Ph.D.

New York State Division of Criminal Justice Service

Executive Park Tower, Stuyvesant Plaza

Albany, NY 12203-3764

Patrica A. Bellucci

Narcotic and Drug Research, Inc.

11 Beach Street

New York, NY 11103

264
Summary Thoughts About Drugs

and Violence

James J. Collins

INTRODUCTION

This final chapter will not repeat in any detail the points made in earlier

chapters. Rather, I will make some general statements about the drugs—

violence connection, point to the undue influence of popular myths about

the drug problem on research and public policy enterprises, and make research recommendations. After early discussion on Goldstein’s (1985) tripartite framework, this chapter argues the need for revision of this framework and suggests a more comprehensive conceptual model.

I contend that the most important aspects of the drugs-violence relationship

are those associated with violence in the drug distribution system. Because

so little is known systematically about this phenomenon, I suggest where

attention should be focused to generate scientific and policy-relevant

understanding.

PHARMACOLOGICAL, ECONOMIC COMPULSIVE, AND

SYSTEMIC VIOLENCE

In his groundbreaking article, Goldstein (1985) proposed three ways that

drugs and violence can be related to each other: (1) the pharmacological

effects of the drug on the user can induce violent behavior, (2) the high

cost of drug use often impels users to commit economic compulsive violent

crime to support continued drug use, and (3) violence is a common feature

of the drug distribution system. This last category, which Goldstein calls

systemic violence, serves a variety of purposes such as protection or expansion of drug distribution market share or retaliation against market participants who violate the rules that govern transactions.

Three chapters in this volume (Fagan, Miller, and Teplin) and the research

literature in general indicate that drug-induced pharmacological violence is

uncommon. Stated another way, there is virtually no evidence that the

265
pharmacological effects of drugs (alcohol excepted) account for a substantial

proportion of drug-related violence. Some qualitative and quantitative data

suggest that crack (Honer et al. 1987; Manschreck et al. 1988), PCP

(Fauman and Fauman 1982; Simonds and Kashani 1980), amphetamines

(Ellinwood 1971; Asnis and Smith 1978; Fink and Hyatt 1978), and barbiturates (Goodman et al. 1986, Tinklenberg and Woodrow 1974; Tinklenberg

1973) have a pharmacologic relationship to violence. These studies are not

methodologically strong, however, because they tend to rely on small and

specialized samples and tend not to control for multiple correlates of violence. The bulk of the evidence suggests a weak or nonexistent relationship, especially when demographic and criminal history factors are included

in analyses as control variables. My own research is consistent with this

finding (Collins et al. 1989). Moreover, drug users themselves agree with

this conclusion. Drug users typically say that their drug use has no relation

to violence (Collins et al. 1989; Fagan, this volume), although the delinquents in the Tinklenberg and Woodrow (1974) study identified barbiturates

as the drug most likely to increase aggression.

There is considerable evidence of a relationship between drugs and economic compulsive violence. Robbery typifies economic compulsive violence.

The strong correlation between the frequent use of expensive and addictive

drugs such as heroin and cocaine and involvement in crimes to generate

cash is well known (Ball et al. 1981; Chaiken and Chaiken 1982; Collins

et al. 1985; Johnson et al. 1985). Costly drug use is clearly an important

correlate of the threatened or actual violence associated with robbery-an

offense that generates quick cash that can be spent to purchase drugs.

The most important violence outcomes associated with drug use are those

that Goldstein refers to as systemic. This violence has been prominently

featured in the media in recent years. The death and bloodshed associated

with the drug distribution system take a heavy toll on the market participants themselves. Moreover, this violence often spills beyond those involved in illegal drug transactions and affects nonparticipants directly

through injury or death and indirectly by disrupting community life. As

discussed later, however, systemic drug violence ought not be viewed as a

simple function of drug transactions. Complex social and economic factors

are also involved.

Research on the violence that characterizes drug distribution settings is

scarce. The limited research, journalistic accounts, and anecdotal evidence

do permit descriptions of some features of the phenomenon. Drug distribution system violence tends to occur (at least most visibly) in areas that:

are socially disorganized, that is, in which formal and informal social

control is absent or ineffective;

have traditionally high rates of interpersonal violence; and

are economically disadvantaged.

266
These features of the phenomenon have implications for understanding the

problem systematically. In his analysis of the future of violent crime,

Skogan (1989) identifies several fundamental features of American life that

help account for violence. Two of them, economic hardship and family and

community social disorganization, appear to be important to the understanding of drug distribution system violence. Drug traffickers appear to come

disproportionately from groups and places that are economically disadvantaged—in which selling drugs is an attractive option despite the risks.

Reuter et al. (1990) suggest that drug dealing is more financially rewarding

than other kinds of crime. In Skogan’s (1989) view, the “. . . theoretical

linkage between hardship and violent crime is provided by the structural

strain approach to understanding violence. In this view, violence is rooted

in structurally induced frustration” (Skogan 1989, p. 242). Understanding

drug system violence also will probably require understanding how economic opportunity is linked to involvement in trafficking.

The association of community disorganization and drug distribution violence

suggests the need for empirical data to understand how these phenomena are

related. For example, which comes first? Does community disorganization

allow drug markets to become established, or do drug markets in an area

precipitate other breakdowns? The association probably is not simple.

Drug markets may flourish in areas that are deteriorating and accelerate

that deterioration.

Drug distribution system violence can be seen as an economic phenomenon

rooted in political and social contexts. Haller (1989) compared it with the

violence associated with bootlegging during prohibition. Haller thinks drug

distribution violence is more prevalent partly because the heavy criminal

penalties associated with heroin and cocaine distribution aeate a multilayered distribution system with multiple transactions that are potentially

unstable and dangerous. Buyers and sellers fear being ripped off by one

another. Hailer (1989) further argues that “Ironically enough, one effect of

policies . . . to deal harshly with drug dealers may have been to increase

violence within heroin and cocaine markets and thus to increase the degree

to which drug dealing has been controlled by men willing to kill for profit”

(Hailer 1989, p. 160). Fagan (this volume) makes a similar point, arguing

that individuals unwilling to use violence or to risk exposure to it may

avoid drug dealing.

There is a literature in the community and social ecology genre that examines the relationship of formal and informal social control, social change,

economic conditions, and other factors to crime in social units such as cities

and neighborhoods (Reiss and Tonry 1986; Sampson 1987; Taylor and Covington 1988). This literature may guide the study of drug distribution system violence. Research on the drug problem has tended to focus on a

single or a small number of variables. That approach may not be appropriate to understanding drug distribution system violence, which appears to

be grounded in collective conditions such as neighborhood deterioration.

267
Finally, a point about the current prevalence of drug distribution violence

should be made. Journalistic accounts can lead one to conclude that violence associated with drug distribution has increased in the last few years.

It is easy to identify cities and neighborhoods where it has emerged recently

as a serious problem. I suggest, however, that evidence of a general increase in drug distrubution violence is not conclusive for two reasons.

First, because drug distribution is geographically mobile, moving from place

to place, we may simply be seeing its disappearance in one place and its

emergence in a new location. Second, the proliferation of deadly weapons

may simply have made drug distribution system violence more lethal and

visible. When violence occurs, death and serious injury may be more

likely.

MYTHICAL DIMENSIONS OF THE DRUG PROBLEM

The rise of the drug problem on the national agenda has helped focus attention and resources on the problem. Unfortunately, strong concern about the

drug problem also encourages public rhetoric that mischaracterizes the problem and that may result in misguided policies and resource commitments.

The claims that youth gangs are heavily involved in drug trafficking and

violence in an organized way is an example of an apparent myth with the

potential to misguide interventions.

A recent report to the President characterized gang involvement in drug trafficking as follows:

. . . California is home to one of the most dangerous and

menacing developments in drug trafficking, the large scale

organized street gang . . . The Los Angeles gangs are radiating out from the areas where they originated-up the

West Coast as far as Seattle and Vancouver, into the heartland as far as Denver, Kansas City, and Chicago, and even

to cities on the East Coast . . . One of the most frightening aspects of California street gangs is their willingness to

direct their violence at each other, at the police, at membets of the public-at anyone who stands in the way of

their operations. (U.S. Attorneys and the Attorney General

of the United States 1989, pp. 33-35)

This report clearly suggests that street gangs are making a calculated, organized, and ruthless attempt to expand their drug-trafficking activities across

the country and to solidify control over drug distribution. There is virtually

no systematic evidence to support this characterization. Moore (this volume) points out. that sensationalized media and police accounts are almost

the sole source of information on gang involvement in crack distribution.

She further points out that organized gang involvement in drug distribution

is not the norm. Recent research by Fagan on gangs in three cities (1989)

268
also suggests that gangs differ from each other in their involvement in drug

sales and violence and, further, that “some incidents no doubt are precipitated by disputes over drug sales or selling territories, but the majority of

violent incidents do not appear to involve drug sales” (Fagan 1989, pp. 660-

661).

To argue that youth gangs are not typically involved in drug trafficking in

an organized way is not to argue that gang members are not involved individually. There is good evidence that juvenile gang members are frequently

involved in a wide variety of illegal behaviors—including drug sales. The

evidence that youth gangs systematically organize and operate drug markets

is poor, and this characterization probably seriously misrepresents reality.

The myth of youth gang drug trafficking, to the extent that it results in

public action and resource commitment, is counterproductive to dealing with

the drug problem constructively.

The above does not argue that drug trafficking lacks formal organization,

however. The drug distribution system is quite complex and often involves

formal organization. The system is not monolithic—either vertically

throughout the distribution levels or geographically. Multiple organizations

participate at wholesale and retail levels and in different areas. There is a

tendency to ignore this multiplicity and to see fully organized conspiracies

where none exist. Exaggerated rhetoric about gang control of drug trafficking is an example.

The U.S. drug problem has proven to be quite intractable—apparently worsening in the face of major attempts to control it. One apparent effect of

this intractability and failure to “win the war against drugs” is the identification of bogeymen with concomitant attempts to bring this identified

enemy under control. The unfortunate effects are that resources are misallocated, and the failure of misguided policies encourage pessimism and a

search for new bogeymen.

The tendency to mischaracterize and sensationalize the drug problem is, in

part, a function of the political and public funding processes. Gangs, for

example, are a natural focal point for political rhetoric about the “war on

drugs.” Gangs are not constituencies the politicians need worry about alienating. Belief in the threat of gangs can also be used to argue for law enforcement budget increases to help police to neutralize the threat.

Research provides a real opportunity to neutralize the mythical dimensions

of the drug problem. Careful research provides accurate description, and

can help, over time, to minimize the damage caused by focusing public

attention and resources on phantom problems.

269
NEED TO RECONCEPTUALIZE THE TRIPARTITE FRAMEWORK

Goldstein’s (1985) concept of pharmacological, economic compulsive, or

systemic violence helped refine thinking about the relation between drug use

and violent behavior. Goldstein’s influence is clearly apparent in the chapters of this volume and in other work published on the drugs-violence connection. A first step in the next stage of conceptual development is to

develop a framework that incorporates the considerable complexity of the

drugs-violence connection. The complexity is manifested in two major

ways: (1) the three components of the tripartite framework (pharmacological, economic compulsive, systemic) are themselves not simple or mutually

exclusive, and (2) factors other than the three concepts also contribute to

the occurrence of drug-related violence.

Psychoactive substances have different pharmacological effects; they may

induce euphoria, act as a stimulant or depressant, result in altered perceptions, and have a variety of other effects. Effects are immediate (minutes,

hours), moderate term (hours, days), and long term (months, years). Immediate and longer term effects of the same drug are often different-initial

euphoria followed by depression, for example. The behavioral manifestations of drug effects also differ. Goldstein (1989) suggests, for example,

that irritability associated with drug withdrawal can increase the likelihood

of violence. In a discussion of how alcohol precipitates violence, Pemanen

(1981) focuses on cognitive impairment. The point is that the pharmacological concept is complex. Distinctions in drug pharmacology and associated

effects on mood and behavior are required to generate better understanding

of the drugs-violence connection.

Typical drug-use patterns also underline the complexity of pharmacologic

violence. Drug users commonly use multiple drugs together (cocaine and

heroin, marijuana and PCP, etc.) or a variety of drugs on different drug-use

occasions. Alcohol use is pervasive among many drug users. Thus, interactions between various psychoactive substances are likely to occur. Pharmacologic effects also do not operate independently. Individual psychology,

situational factors, and cultural orientation combine with the effects of drugs

to shape behavior. Cultural influences, for example, help account for violent behavior; Wolfgang and Ferracuti (1967) reviewed and attempted to

integrate much of the evidence for a “subculture of violence.”

Economic compulsive violence (robbery), even by an addict intent on getting money to feed his or her drug habit, likely has multiple roots. Robbery proceeds may be sought for multiple purposes. The act may be retaliatory as well as acquisitive, for example. Drug distribution system violence

should be considered in a multifactoral framework that considers social and

economic conditions.

270
Violence, too, is a complex phenomenon. Violent interactions between

individuals have complex etiological roots-typically involving individual,

situational, and cultural factors. Violence associated with drug use or distribution is not unique in this regard; it does not evolve simply from the pharmacological, economic compulsive, or distributional influences of drug use.

The above discussion suggests that the influence of drugs on violence

should be considered in a complex behavioral model.

The categories listed below identify the major factors thought to be associated with violence generally, with special attention given to drugs-violence

issues

Antecedent Influences

Developmental: early injury, abuse, or neglect; socialization experiences

Cultural: norms, values, beliefs

Current Conditions

Drug Pharmacology: cognitive impairment, emotional lability

Social: community disorganization, social control

Economic: opportunity, compulsion

Situational: location, environment

It is suggested that all of the above factors are associated with the propensity to act violently. Considering antecedent influences, there is evidence,

for example, that being the victim of child abuse is a risk factor for subsequent violence (Widom 1989). Cultural (or subcultural) factors affect the

tendency to act violently. Depending on enculturation experience—the content and internalization of norms, values, and beliefs—individuals are more

or less inclined to be violent.

The factors listed under “current conditions” affect the occurrence of drugrelated violence. The pharmacological effects of drugs might help account

for violence in at least two different ways: by drug-induced cognitive impairment, e.g., paranoia, and emotional lability, e.g., irritability.

Social factors such as community disorganization and social control are

known to be associated with both drug use and violence. Drug use and

drug distribution system violence typically occur in disorganized communities where such things as family stability and effective social control mechanisms are weak. Sampson (1987) and Taylor and Covington (1988) have

shown how a variety of economic and social features of neighborhood and

family life are associated with violence. The latter study examined the

effects of social disorganization and relative deprivation in Baltimore neighborhoods and found declining status to be associated with increases in violence. At an individual level, Goldstein has pointed to the compulsive

271
violence sometimes engaged in to support continued drug use. Drug trafficking can also be viewed as an economic opportunity for those who are

blocked from commensurately rewarding legitimate avenues to financial success. The choice of drug trafficking as an occupation may be associated

with the willingness to engage in violence. Fagan (this volume) thinks a

selection process may operate that attracts individuals to crack distribution

who are not averse to violence.

Finally, situational factors will shape the likelihood and type of violence.

Selling crack on a street comer, for example, may involve a higher risk of

violence for a seller than selling in a crack house (Mieczkowski, this

volume).

Figure 1 illustrates a scheme for organizing thinking and research about

drug-related violence. It incorporates all of the above factors, some of

which operate at the level of the individual, others of which operate at a

collective Ievel. The arrows indicate hypothesized direct and indirect effects. The model represents the influence of factors temporally. Developmental and cultural effects are suggested to have their influence in early

Life. Drug pharmacology, social, and economic factors are represented as

having contemporary effects. Situational factors are those influences most

proximate to the occurrence of the violence.

FIGURE 1. Conceptual scheme for organizing understanding of the

drugs-violence relationship

The model needs more formal development but is an initial attempt to interpret some of what is known of past findings and to suggest an approach for

organizing future research. The model is ambitious and clearly not fully

272
testable by any single study. It is meant to be a heuristic conceptual device

to promote the further development of understanding of violence, especially

that associated with drug use and distribution.

CONCLUSION

Several points have been argued in this chapter:

the pharmacologic effects of drugs (alcohol excepted) are not major

factors accounting for interpersonal violence when demographic and

other correlates of violence are controlled;

costly drug use is etiologicalIy important to the occurrence of robbery;

drug distribution system violence is an important contemporary problem

in need of systematic attention from researchers;

myths have tended to grow up around the drug problem for political

and economic reasons;

the tripartite conceptual framework for understanding drugs and violence

needs elaboration; and

the most appropriate conceptual model for understanding the drug and

violence relationship is one that incorporates multiple factors including

social, economic, and cultural variables.

Violence in general and violence associated with drug distribution seriously

threatens some communities. If media and anecdotal accounts are accurate,

some communities (neighborhoods) have been able to reduce or alleviate the

problem by collective action. This suggests an understanding of the problem by its victims that probably equals or surpasses that of social scientists.

It also highlights the fact that features of community life are important to

the occurrence and control of violence. Better scientific understanding of

the phenomenon will depend in part on the capacity of the social sciences

to develop and test explanatory models that incorporate both individual and

community factors.

REFERENCES

Asnis, S.F., and Smith, R.C. Amphetamine abuse and violence. J Psychedelic Drugs 10(4):371-377, 1978.

Ball, J.C.; Rosen, L; Flueck, J.A.; and Nurco, D.N. The criminality of

heroin addicts when addicted and when off opiates. In: Inciardi, J.A.,

ed. The Drugs-Crime Connection. Beverly Bills, CA: Sage, 1981.

pp. 39-65.

273
Chaiken, J., and Chaiken, M. Varieties of Criminal Behavior. Santa

Monica, CA: Rand, 1982.

Collins, J.J.; Hubard, R.L; and Rachal, J.V. Expensive drug use and illegal

income: A test of explanatory hypotheses Criminology 23(4):743-764,

1985.

Collins, J.J.; Powers, L.L.; and Craddock, A. Recent, Drug Use and Violent

Arrest Charges in Three Cities. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research

Triangle Institute, 1989.

EIlinwood, E.H. Assault and homicide associated with amphetamine abuse.

Am J Psychiatry 127(9):1170-1175, 1971.

Fagan, J. The social organization of drug use and drug dealing among

urban gangs. Criminology 27(4):633-669, 1989.

Fauman, B.J., and Fauman, M.A. Phencyclidine abuse and crime: A psychiatric perspective. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 10(3):171-176, 1982.

Fink, L. and Hyatt, M.P. Drug use and criminal behavior. J Drug Educ

8(2):139-149, 1978.

Goldstein, P.J. The drugs-violence nexus: A tripartite conceptual framework. J Drug Issues 15:493-506, 1985.

Goldstein, P.J. Drugs and violent crime. In: Weiner, N.A., and Wolfgang,

M.E., eds. Pathways to Criminal Violence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage,

1989. pp. 16-48.

Goodman, R.A.; Merry, J.A.; and Rosenberg, M.L. Drug use and interpersonal violence: Barbiturates detected in homicide victims. Am J Epidemiology 124(5):851-855, 1986.

Haller, M.H. Bootlegging: The business and politics of violence. In:

Gurr, T.R., ed. Violence in America. Vol. 1. Newbury Park, CA: Sage,

1989. pp. 146-162.

Honer, W.G.; Gewirtz, G.; and Turey, M. Psychosis and violence in cocaine smokers. Lancet II, 8556:451, 1987.

Johnson, B.D.; Goldstein, P.J.; Preble, E.; Schmeidler, J.; Lipton, D.S.;

Spunt, B.; and Miller, T. Taking Care of Business: The Economics of

Crime by Heroin Abusers. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1985.

Manschreck, T.C.; Allen, D.F.; and Neville, M. Freebase psychosis: Cases

from a Bahamian epidemic of cocaine abuse. Compr Psychiatry

28(6):555-564, 1988.

Pemanen, K. Theoretical aspects of the relationship between alcohol and

crime. In: Collins, J.J., ed. Drinking and Crime: Perspectives on the

Relationship Between Alcohol Consumption and Crime Behavior. New

York: Guilford Press, 1981.

Reiss, A.J., and Tonry, M., eds. Communities and Crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986.

Reuter, P.; Macoun, R.; and Murphy, P. Money from Crime: A Study of

the Economics of Drug Dealing in Washington, D.C. Santa Monica, CA:

Rand Corporation, 1990.

Sampson, R. Urban black violence: The effect of male joblessness and

family disruption. Am J Social 93:348-382, 1987.

274
Simonds, J.F., and Kashani, J. Specific drug use and violence in delinquent

boys. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 7(3,4):305-322, 1980.

Skogan, W.G. Social change and the future of violent crime. In: Gurr,

T.R., ed. Violence in America Vol. 1. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1989. pp. 235-250.

Taylor, R.B., and Covington, J.B. Neighborhood changes in ecology and

violence. Criminology 26(4):553-589, 1988.

Tinklenberg, J.R. Drugs and crime. In: National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Drug Use in America: Problem in Perspective.

Appendix, Vol. 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973.

pp. 242-299.

Tinklenberg, J.R., and Woodrow, K.M. Drug use among youthful assaultive

and sexual offenders. Aggression 52:209-224, 1974.

U.S. Attorneys and Attorney GeneraI of the United States. Drug Trafficking. A Report to the President of the United States. Washington, DC:

Office of the Attorney General, 1989.

Widom, C.S. The intergenerational transmission of violence. In: Weiner,

N.A., and Wolfgang, M.E., eds. Pathways to Criminal Violence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1989. pp. 137-201.

Wolfgang, M.E., and Ferracuti, F. The Subculture of Violence. London:

Tavistock, 1967.

AUTHOR

James D. Collins, Ph.D.

Senior Program Director

Research Triangle Institute

P.O. Box 12194

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

275
monograph series

While limited supplies last, single copies of the monographs may be

obtained free of charge from the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and

Drug Information (NCADI). Please contact NCADI also for information

about availability of coming issues and other publications of the National

Institute on Drug Abuse relevant to drug abuse research.

Additional copies may be purchased from the U.S. Government Printing

Office (GPO) and/or the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) as

indicated. NTIS prices are for paper copy; add $3.00 handling charge for

each order. Microfiche copies are also available from NTIS. Prices from

either source are subject to change.

Addressee are:

NCADI

National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information

P.O. Box 2345

Rockville, MD 20852

GPO

Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, DC 20402

NTIS

National Technical Information Service

U.S. Department of Commerce

Springfield, VA 22161

(703) 487-4650

For information on availability of National Institute on Drug Abuse

Research Monographs 1 through 24 (1975-1979) and others not listed,

write to NIDA, Community and Professional Education Branch,

Room 10A-54, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.

276
25 BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS AND TREATMENT OF SUBSTANCE

ABUSE. Norman A. Krasnegor, Ph.D., ed.

GPO out of stock NCADI out of stock

NTIS PB #80-112428/AS $31

26 THE BEHAVIORAL ASPECTS OF SMOKING. Norman A. Krasnegor,

Ph.D., ed. (Reprint from 1979 Surgeon General’s Report on Smoking and

Health.)

GPO out of stock NTIS PB #30-118755/AS $23

30 THEORIES ON DRUG ABUSE: SELECTED CONTEMPORARY

PERSPECTIVES. Dan J. Lettieri, Ph.D.; Mollie Sayers; and Helen W. Pearson,

eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-00997-1 NCADI out of stock

Not available from NTIS

31 MARIJUANA RESEARCH FINDINGS: 1980. Robert C. Petersen, Ph.D.,

ed.

GPO out of stock NTIS PB #80-215171/AS $31

32 GC/MS ASSAYS FOR ABUSED DRUGS IN BODY FLUIDS. Rodger L.

Foltz, Ph.D.; Allison F. Fentiman, Jr., Ph.D.; and Ruth B. Foltz.

GPO out of stock NCADI out of stock

NTIS PB #81-133746/AS $31

36 NEW APPROACHES TO TREATMENT OF CHRONIC PAIN: A

REVIEW OF MULTIDISCIPLINARY PAIN CLINICS AND PAIN CENTERS.

Lorenz K.Y. Ng, M.D., ed.

GPO out of stock NCADI out of stock

NTIS PB #81-240913/AS $31

37 BEHAVIORAL PHARMACOLOGY OF HUMAN DRUG DEPENDENCE.

Travis Thompson, Ph.D., and Chris E. Johanson, Ph.D., eds.

GPO out of stock NCADI out of stock

NTIS PB #82-136961/AS $39

38 DRUG ABUSE AND THE AMERICAN ADOLESCENT. Dan J. Lettieri,

Ph.D., and Jacqueline P. Ludford, M.S., eds. A RAUS Review Report.

GPO out of stock NCADI out of stock

NTIS PB #82-148198/AS $23

40 ADOLESCENT MARIJUANA ABUSERS AND THEIR FAMILIES.

Herbert Hendin, M.D.; Ann Pollinger, Ph.D.; Richard Ulman, Ph.D.; and

Arthur Carr, Ph.D., eds.

GPO out of stock NCADI out of stock

NTIS PB #82-133117/AS $23

42 THE ANALYSIS OF CANNABINOIDS IN BIOLOGICAL FLUIDS.

Richard L. Hawks, Ph.D., ed.

GPO out of stock NTlS PB #83-136044/AS $23

277
44 MARIJUANA EFFECTS ON THE ENDOCRINE AND REPRODUCTIVE

SYSTEMS. Monique C. Braude, Ph.D., and Jacqueline P. Ludford, M.S., eds.

A RAUS Review Report.

GPO out of stock NCADI out of stock

NTIS PB #85-150563/AS $23

45 CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN PAIN AND ANALGESIA, 1983.

Roger M. Brown, Ph.D.; Theodore M. Pinkert. M.D., J.D.; and Jacqueline P.

Ludford, M.S., eds. A RAUS Review Report.

GPO out of stock NCADI out of stock

NTIS PB #84-184670/AS $17

46 BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION TECHNIQUES IN DRUG ABUSE

TREATMENT. John Grabowski, Ph.D.; Maxine L. Stitzer, Ph.D.; and Jack E.

Henningfield, Ph.D., eds.

GPO out of stock NCADI out of stock

NTIS PB #84-184668/AS $23

47 PREVENTING ADOLESCENT DRUG ABUSE: INTERVENTION

STRATEGIES. Thomas J. Glynn, Ph.D.; Carl G. Leukefeld, D.S.W.; and

Jacqueline P. Ludford, M.S., eds. A RAUS Review Report.

GPO Stock #017-024-01180-1 $5.50 NCADI out of stock

NTIS PB #85-159663/AS $31

48 MEASUREMENT IN THE ANALYSIS AND TREATMENT OF

SMOKING BEHAVIOR. John Grabowski, Ph.D., and Catherine Bell, M.S.,

eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01181-9 $4.50 NCADI out of stock

NTIS PB #84-145184/AS $23

50 COCAINE: PHARMACOLOGY, EFFECTS, AND TREATMENT OF

ABUSE. John Grabowski, Ph.D., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01214-9 $4 NTIS PB #85-150381/AS $23

51 DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT EVALUATION: STRATEGIES,

PROGRESS, AND PROSPECTS. Frank M. Tims, Ph.D., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01218-1 $4.50 NTIS PB #85-150365/AS $23

52 TESTING DRUGS FOR PHYSICAL DEPENDENCE POTENTIAL AND

ABUSE LIABILITY. Joseph V. Brady, Ph.D., and Scott E. Lukas, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01204-1 $4.25 NTIS PB #85-150373/AS $23

53 PHARMACOLOGICAL ADJUNCTS IN SMOKING CESSATION.

John Grabowski, Ph.D., and Sharon M. Hall, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01266-1 $3.50 NCADI out of stock

NTIS PB #89-123186/AS $23

278
54 MECHANISMS OF TOLERANCE AND DEPENDENCE. Charles Wm.

Sharp, Ph.D., ed.

GPO out of stock NCADI out of stock

NTIS PB #89-103279/AS $39

55 PROBLEMS OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, 1984: PROCEEDINGS OF

THE 46TH ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC MEETING, THE COMMITTEE ON

PROBLEMS OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, INC. Louis. S. Harris, Ph. D., ed.

GPO out of stock NCADI out of stock

NTIS PB #89-123194/AS $45

56 ETIOLOGY OF DRUG ABUSE: IMPLICATIONS FOR PREVENTION.

Coryl LaRue Jones, Ph.D., and Robert J. Battjes, D.S.W.. eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01250-5 $6.50 NTIS PB #89-123160/AS $31

57 SELF-REPORT METHODS OF ESTIMATING DRUG USE: MEETING

CURRENT CHALLENGES TO VALIDITY. Beatrice A. Rouse, Ph.D.;

Nicholas J. Kozel, M.S.; and Louise G. Richards, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01246-7 $4.25 NTIS PB #88-248083/AS $23

58 PROGRESS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF COST-EFFECTIVE TREATMENT FOR DRUG ABUSERS. Rebecca S. Ashery, D.S.W., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01247-5 $4.25 NTIS PB #89-125017/AS $23

59 CURRENT RESEARCH ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF MATERNAL

DRUG ABUSE. Theodore M. Pinkert, M.D., J.D., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01249-1 $2.50 NTIS PB #89-125025/AS $23

60 PRENATAL DRUG EXPOSURE: KINETICS AND DYNAMICS.

C. Nora Chiang, Ph.D., and Charles C. Lee, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01257-2 $3.50 NTIS PB #89-124564/AS $23

61 COCAINE USE IN AMERICA: EPIDEMIOLOGIC AND CLINICAL

PERSPECTIVES. Nicholas J. Kozel, M.S., and Edgar H. Adams, M.S., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01258-1 $5 NTIS PB #89-131866/AS $31

62 NEUROSCIENCE METHODS IN DRUG ABUSE RESEARCH. Roger M.

Brown, Ph.D., and David P. Friedman, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01260-2 $3.50 NCADI out of stock

NTIS PB #89-130660/AS $28

63 PREVENTION RESEARCH: DETERRING DRUG ABUSE AMONG

CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS. Catherine S. Bell, M.S., and Robert J.

Battjes. D.S.W., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01263-7 $5.50 NTIS PB #89-103287/AS $31

64 PHENCYCLIDINE: AN UPDATE. Doris H. Clouet, Ph.D., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01281-5 $6.50 NTIS PB #89-131858/AS $31

279
65 WOMEN AND DRUGS: A NEW ERA FOR RESEARCH. Barbara A.

Ray, Ph.D., and Monique C. Braude, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01283-1 $3.50 NTIS PB #39-130637/AS $23

66 GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL MARKERS IN DRUG ABUSE AND

ALCOHOLISM. Monique C. Braude, Ph.D., and Helen M. Chao, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01291-2 $3.50 NCADI out of stock

NTIS PB #89-134423/AS $23

68 STRATEGIES FOR RESEARCH ON THE INTERACTIONS OF DRUGS

OF ABUSE. Monique C. Braude, Ph.D., and Harold M. Ginzburg, M.D., J.D.,

eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01296-3 $6.50 NCADI out of stock

NTIS PB #89-134936/AS $31

69 OPIOID PEPTIDES: MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY. Rao S. Rapaka, Ph.D.;

Gene Barnett, Ph.D.; and Richard L. Hawks, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-1297-1 $11 NTIS PB #89-158422/AS $39

70 OPIOID PEPTIDES: MOLECULAR PHARMACOLOGY, BIOSYNTHESIS, AND ANALYSIS. Rao S. Rapaka, Ph.D., and Richard L. Hawks, Ph.D.,

eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-1298-0 $12 NTIS PB #89-158430/AS $45

71 OPIATE RECEPTOR SUBTYPES AND BRAIN FUNCTION. Roger M.

Brown, Ph.D.; Doris H. Clouet, Ph.D.; and David P. Friedman, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01303-0 $6 NTIS PB #89-151955/AS $31

72 RELAPSE AND RECOVERY IN DRUG ABUSE. Frank M. Tims, Ph.D.,

and Carl G. Leukefeld, D.S.W., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01302-1 $6 NTIS PB #89-151963/AS $31

73 URINE TESTING FOR DRUGS OF ABUSE. Richard L. Hawks, Ph.D.,

and C. Nora Chiang, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01313-7 $3.75 NTIS PB #89-151971/AS $23

74 NEUROBIOLOGY OF BEHAVIORAL CONTROL IN DRUG ABUSE.

Stephen I. Szara, M.D., D.Sc., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-1314-5 $3.75 NTIS PB #89-151989/AS $23

75 PROGRESS IN OPIOID RESEARCH. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1986

INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS RESEARCH CONFERENCE. John W.

Holaday, Ph.D.; Ping-Yee Law, Ph.D.; and Albert Herz. M.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01315-3 $21 NCADI out of stock

Not available from NTIS

280
76 PROBLEMS OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, 1986. PROCEEDINGS OF

THE 48TH ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC MEETING, THE COMMITTEE ON

PROBLEMS OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, INC. Louis S. Harris, Ph.D., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01316-1 $16 NCADI out of stock

NTIS PB #38-288111/AS $53

77 ADOLESCENT DRUG ABUSE: ANALYSES OF TREATMENT

RESEARCH. Elizabeth R. Rahdert, Ph.D., and John Grabowski, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01348-0 $4 NTIS PB #89-125488/AS $23

78 THE ROLE OF NEUROPLASTICITY IN THE RESPONSE TO DRUGS.

David P. Friedman, Ph.D., and Doris H. Clouet, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01330-7 $6 NTIS PB #88-245683/AS $31

79 STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIPS OF THE CANNABINOIDS.

Rao S. Rapaka, Ph.D., and Alexandra Makriyannis, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01331-5 $6 NTIS PB #89-109201/AS $31

80 NEEDLE SHARING AMONG INTRAVENOUS DRUG ABUSERS:

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES. Robert J. Battjes,

D.S.W., and Roy W. Pickens, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01345-5 $5.50 NTIS PB #88-236138/AS $31

81 PROBLEMS OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, 1987. PROCEEDINGS OF

THE 49-TH ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC MEETING, THE COMMITTEE ON

PROBLEMS OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, INC. Louis S. Harris, Ph.D., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01354-4 $17 NTIS PB #89-109227/AS

Contact NTIS for pride

82 OPIOIDS IN THE HIPPOCAMPUS. Jacqueline F. McGinty, Ph.D., and

David P. Friedman, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01344-7 $4.25 NTIS PB #88-245691/AS $23

83 HEALTH HAZARDS OF NITRITE INHALANTS. Harry W. Haverkos,

M.D., and John A. Dougherty, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01351-0 $3.25 NTIS PB #89-125496/AS $23

84 LEARNING FACTORS IN SUBSTANCE ABUSE. Barbara A. Ray,

Ph.D., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01353-6 $6 NTIS PB #89-125504/AS $31

85 EPIDEMIOLOGY OF INHALANT ABUSE: AN UPDATE. Raquel A.

Crider, Ph.D., and Beatrice A. Rouse, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01360-9 $5.50 NTIS PB #89-123178/AS $31

86 COMPULSORY TREATMENT OF DRUG ABUSE: RESEARCH AND

CLINICAL PRACTICE. Carl G. Leukefeld, D.S.W., and Frank M. Tims,

Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01352-8 $7.50 NTIS PB #89-151997/AS $31

281
87 OPIOID PEPTIDES: AN UPDATE. Rao S. Rapaka, Ph.D., and Bhola N.

Dhawan, M.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01366-8 $7 NTIS PB #89-158430/AS $45

88 MECHANISMS OF COCAINE ABUSE AND TOXICITY. Doris H.

Clouet, Ph.D.; Khursheed Asghar, Ph.D.; and Roger M. Brown, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01359-5 $11 NTIS PB #89-125512/AS $39

89 BIOLOGICAL VULNERABILITY TO DRUG ABUSE. Roy W. Pickens,

Ph.D., and Dace S. Svikis, B.A., eds.

GPO Stock #017-022-01054-2 $5 NTIS PB #89-125520/AS $23

90 PROBLEMS OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, 1988. PROCEEDINGS OF

THE 50TH ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC MEETING. THE COMMITTEE ON

PROBLEMS OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, INC. Louis S. Harris, Ph.D., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01362-5 $17

91 DRUGS IN THE WORKPLACE: RESEARCH AND EVALUATION

DATA. Steven W. Gost, Ph.D., and J. Michael Walsh, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01384-6 $10 NTIS PB #90-147257/AS $39

92 TESTING FOR ABUSE LIABILITY OF DRUGS IN HUMANS.

Marian W. Fischman, Ph.D., and Nancy K. Mello, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01379-0 $12 NTIS PB #90-148933/AS $45

93 AIDS AND INTRAVENOUS DRUG USE: FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR

COMMUNITY-BASED PREVENTION RESEARCH. C.G. Leukefeld, D.S.W.;

R.J. Battjes, D.S.W.; and Z. Amsel, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01388-9 $10 NTIS PB #90-148941/AS $39

94 PHARMACOLOGY AND TOXICOLOGY OF AMPHETAMINE AND

RELATED DESIGNER DRUGS. Khursheed Asghar, Ph.D., and Errol

De Souza, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01386-2 $11 NTIS PB #90-148958/AS $39

IN PRESS:

95 PROBLEMS OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, 1989. PROCEEDINGS OF

THE 51ST ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC MEETING. THE COMMITTEE ON

PROBLEMS OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, INC. Louis S. Harris, Ph.D., ed.

96 DRUGS OF ABUSE: CHEMISTRY, PHARMACOLOGY, IMMUNOLOGY, AND AIDS. Phuong Thi Kim Pham, Ph.D., and Kenner Rice, Ph.D.,

eds.

97 NEUROBIOLOGY OF DRUG ABUSE: LEARNING AND MEMORY.

Lynda Erinoff, ed.

98 THE COLLECTION AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA FROM

HIDDEN POPULATIONS. Elizabeth Y. Lambert, M.S., ed.

282
99 RESEARCH FINDINGS ON SMOKING OF ABUSED SUBSTANCES.

C. Nora Chiang, Ph.D., and Richard L. Hawks, Ph.D., eds.

100 DRUGS IN THE WORKPLACE: RESEARCH AND EVALUATION

DATA. VOL. II. Steven W. Gost, Ph.D., and J. Michael Walsh, Ph.D., eds.

101 RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF ABUSED DRUGS ON BEHAVIOR. John W.

Spencer, Ph.D., and John J. Boren, Ph.D., eds.

102 ANABOLIC STEROID ABUSE. Geraline C. Lin, Ph.D., Lynda Erinoff,

Ph.D., eds.

103 DRUGS AND VIOLENCE: CAUSES, CORRELATES, AND CONSEQUENCES. Mario De La Rosa, Ph.D.; Elizabeth Y. Lambert, M.S.; and

Bernard Gropper, Ph.D., eds.

283
DHHS Publication No. (ADM) 91-1721

Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration

Printed 1990