Cannabis and Criminality

There appears to be no definitive answer to whether or not Cannabis causes crime, other than, "it depends upon what you mean by 'crime.'"

Does Cannabis 'cause' crime in the sense that it somehow 'makes' the user act in a way that is against their fundamental nature? Does it 'make' good people do bad things? This has been one of those immovable cornerstones of anti-drug rhetoric since the early decades of the twentieth century; it persists to the present day. However, persistence does not necessarily mean that it is true.

In academia, substance use of any sort other than (arguably) alcohol gets off to a pretty bad start. In psychology, the subject is usually lumped in as abnormal, criminal or forensic, all of which are pretty negative. Regarding sociology, it is usually classed as deviant or subcultural, again, pretty negative. Pharmacology tends to focus mainly on the physical and/or mental harms caused by drug use, and the treatment substance use receives from criminologists is pretty self-explanatory. Nowhere, to our knowledge, is there an academic discipline of any sort that openly celebrates the positive or benign aspects - and really, there are many of these - of non-medical substance use.

Certainly, even the most ardent anti-prohibitionist would have to admit that there is without doubt a connection of some sort between Cannabis and crime. At the most obvious level, this stems from the legal status of Cannabis; in most countries, dope is illegal, therefore getting caught in possession without an officially or medically approved reason - together with an accompanying permit from the appropriate governmental department - is going to lead to legal problems of some sort.

Thus, individuals who may otherwise be completely law-abiding citizens but who enjoy a smoke as an evening relaxant, social lubricant, etc., will immediately - in the eyes of the law at least - fall under the classification of 'criminal'. If actually apprehended, then these individuals become public criminals and the consequences of being labeled as such can potentially be quite far-reaching. While all of this is hypothetically correct, it should be noted that, where tokers truly are model citizens in all other walks of their lives, the chances of being busted are in actuality quite remote. The point of this is to make it clear that on a very obvious level it could be said that Cannabis use is linked to crime. At the risk of sounding pedantic, a more accurate way of expressing this would be: "Cannabis use in countries where it is illegal makes the user a criminal in theory; however, only if they are apprehended while in possession of Cannabis will this become a reality."

In 1985, Paul Goldstein published Goldstein's Tripartite Framework in an attempt to disentangle all of the different strands of evidence, fact, myth, rumor and downright lies surrounding the whole question of drugs and crime. At the time, Goldstein was specifically concerned with violent crime, but the theoretical framework he proposed works well when applied to any sort of drug-related crime, which is what we are going to do here; just because someone uses a lot of weed but never touches, say, cocaine, does not disqualify them from involvement in violent crime. This whole idea that stoners are a peaceful bunch is a myth like so many others (consider, for example, Charlie Manson and various Family members). I am getting ahead of myself, though; we shall come back to all of that in a while.

This Tripartite Framework is not without its flaws, but many still think it covers all of the bases and refer to it in our work today.

Essentially, Goldstein broke drug-related crime into three types: psychopharmacological, economic compulsive and systemic.

Psychopharmacological Crime

This model "suggests that some individuals, as a result of short- or long-term ingestion of specific substances, may become excitable, irrational and may exhibit violent behavior."

While this can probably be applied to some substances, for example, uppers, cocaine and/or crack and particularly alcohol, there is very little in the way of evidence to indicate that it applies to Cannabis (nor opiates). Smoking or eating weed, even across decades, seems unlikely to result in the sort of psychological changes required to 'make' most users violent. Whether the user has pre-existing, underlying mental health problems is an entirely different issue.

As applied to Cannabis and opiates, Goldstein says this is "largely discredited" and points out that it had been even back in the 1920s when Lawrence Kolb - in a staggering example of common sense thinking, given the date - described as an "absurd fallacy" the whole notion of crime committed while on drugs. This notwithstanding, even as late as the 1950s, stories would appear in the press concerning "deranged Negroes," Hispanics, Chinese and pretty much any other ethnic minority group "running amok," "raping and pillaging" while under the influence of the "evil weed marihuana" or variations on that basic, highly-racist theme. Fact: In the case of most users, this scenario is simply not true. However, the truth or facts did not stop people from believing it, and amazingly, we still come across individuals who adhere to this view.

It should be noted that one place where this line is trotted out from time to time is in the court system as a defense for a (usually) reprehensible act. In these situations, drug use is presented as a sort of defense or excuse for criminal actions - simply put, "it was the drug that made me do it."

There was a protracted court case in Scotland back in the early years of the last decade involving the highly unpleasant murder of a teenage girl by her boyfriend. As part of his defense, the lawyer for this odious specimen told the court that the accused was smoking several ounces of Cannabis a week in the months leading up to the time of the murder. Fortunately, neither the jury nor the judge bought any of it and this character is currently serving a long, long stretch. "It was the drug that made me do it" equals nonsense.

Economic Compulsive Crime

This part suggests that some drug users engage in economically-oriented crime, e.g., robbery, in order to support costly drug use, so economically-oriented crime on the part of the user is to generate income for their drug of choice. I do not think that there is a lot of need to dwell on this too much when it comes to Cannabis users, although I can see where it applies to users of certain other substances. Honestly, the extent of most Cannabis users' involvement in this sort of thing probably extends as far as a bit of dealing in order to fund and guarantee their own supply, or they might set up a few lights and grow a couple of plants.

I have searched high and low for evidence to indicate that Cannabis users commit acquisitive crime (robbery, mugging, shoplifting, etc.) in order to feed their habit and, other than the odd highly-spurious case in line with the one above - where straws are being clutched at by criminals in an attempt at justification - I have found absolutely nothing to lend any credence to this in relation to Cannabis.

Systemic Crime

This one "...refers to the traditionally aggressive patterns of interaction within the system of drug distribution and use" and as such is where we find most of the crime associated with drugs. Basically, it is about the crime, violence and general mayhem the goes hand-in-hand with trafficking and dealing. This goes from low level local dealing right up to international cartels worth gazillions of dollars.

One would traditionally have associated this kind of thing as specific to substances with a supposedly high addiction potential, namely meth, cocaine and heroin. And conversely, the kind of thing commonly associated with Cannabis trafficking and dealing is something altogether more benign, laid-back and non-violent. In the past, we have interviewed grower/dealers about how they might handle, say, a non-payment situation. None of them indicated that they would be prepared to resort to violence - although, to be fair, this very much depended upon the amount in question - and would much rather simply not have any further dealings with the person. Additionally, they would put out the word that this person was a bad debt risk and not to be trusted.

While this was the case a decade ago, the whole scene has changed considerably. Where one would find individual dealers, a lot of them students, or a loose confederation of dealers working primarily for themselves but prepared to front each other a few ounces of weed or some money here and there, this is largely no longer the case. While the attitude used to be "there is plenty of trade and therefore money to go around," this is typically no longer the case.

In the past decade or so, organized and highly criminal groups have taken an interest in Cannabis wholesaling and dealing. The chances are that this was always the case with hash/resin, but a lot less so with weed. Whereas these characters used to focus upon drugs with a high dependence potential, they have recently been looking more towards sustainable and lower-risk revenue streams. For example, Cannabis can easily be grown in the UK, whereas heroin and cocaine still have to be imported and there are a lot of risks attached to that.

So organized crime has moved into the Cannabis market and along with this has come some business practices previously alien to the scene. Again, we return to Goldstein for more about this. He lists a number of examples of systemic violence traditionally associated with 'hard' drugs. We would suggest that he revise this to include and incorporate big-time Cannabis dealing.

A few examples are "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 the dealer or his/her boss" and "punishment for failing to pay one's debts." In short, all of the nonsense commonly associated with the movement of 'hard' drugs.

There is one part of organized crime that always seems to attract people who are in it purely for the kick of the violence. Enforcers is one name for them, sadistic thugs is another. These characters are there because of the omnipresent potential for violence and mayhem that exists in that world. Money can be an attraction, drugs as well, but it is the violence that drives these guys. If they were not involved in trafficking and dealing, they would be smuggling people, organs, weapons - in short, anything that carries the promise of bloodshed.

I recently saw Oliver Stone's film, Savages, in which two weed growers find their easygoing, freewheeling lives going to shit when a Mexican cartel decides to muscle in on their patch. It is fiction, for sure, but part of the United States does border Mexico. Some gentlemen of my acquaintance in British Columbia, Canada, and Arizona tell me that they have had visits from representatives of, respectively, the Hell's Angels and a Mexican cartel making overtures about some sort of 'business alliance'. Needless to say, my acquaintances are none too keen, but wonder whether they will ultimately have a choice in the matter.

Ah, drug hubris and folly.

Ultimately, all of the above comes back to one fundamental issue: Cannabis is illegal. However, it being illegal does not stop people from wanting it (and getting it). What is the answer to this? That is pretty obvious, in our view.

Resources:
Goldstein, PJ (1985) The Drugs/Violence Nexus: A Tripartite Conceptual Framework. Journal of Drug Issues 15(4): 493-506.

Kolb, L (1925) Drug Addiction and Its Relation to Crime. Mental Hygiene 9:74-89