Discuss the nature and extent of heroin addiction and acquisitive crime in the UK.

This essays will be examining the nature and extent of heroin addiction and acquisitive crime in the UK, by looking at the various theories proposed to explain the link made between heroin addiction and acquisitive crime and by examining the extent and the effect the two problems have on the UK. Firstly it would be appropriate to briefly out line what heroin is and the effect it has on users.

Heroin is a semi synthetic, psychoactive opiate derived from the drug morphine. It belongs to a group of drugs known as depressants along with alcohol and barbiturates among others. The effect of heroin intake could be described as a feeling of intense euphoria. Once a ‘high’ is experienced the user continues with a desire to consume more of the drug. Being a depressant, heroin unlike most illegal substances is physically as well as psychologically addictive. Continuation of heroin usage results in physical addiction. So along with mentally craving the drug, dependant heroin users also suffer from withdrawal syndrome, also known as ‘cold turkey’, which is a severe and unpleasant set of symptoms, which occur when the users body need the drug these symptoms include diarrhoea, convulsions, vomiting, and uncontrollable body movements. Withdrawal syndrome in heroin users is caused by cellular neuro adaptation to heroin.

It is also appropriate to point out the background of most heroin users. Bean (2002) notes of the majority of heroin users are working class and/or unemployed, the ‘socio-economic status of this group puts them at high risk of criminality’. The two points of, withdrawal syndrome, experienced by dependant users and their background relate to the first of three theories that will be outlined in this paper, explaining the link between heroin addiction crime. The three main theories are in short, drug use causes crime (economic necessity model), crime causes drug use and lastly, drugs use and crime are related to other factors.

The economic necessity theory is based on the addiction model. ‘Desire to take drugs generates the need for money which can often only be fulfilled by acquisitive crime’ (Best et al 2001). With the majority of dependant users there is a lack of legitimate funds from which they can purchase heroin. Benefits, low wages and handouts from friends/family are in some cases the only source of legitimate income available to finance such habits. On average the dependent heroin user would consume approximately one third of a gram of the drug on 228 days of the year (ISDD 1994) with this gram costing approximately £50 to £60 (ISDD1994) with this information it is possible to say that the average dependent heroin users income is insufficient to purchase a suitable amount of drug to sustain their habit. This model suggests that the effects of heroin (withdrawal syndrome as mentioned above) create and irrepressible need in users to obtain the drug, without the sufficient funds to do so they are forced to commit acquisitive crime in order to purchase the drug.

The evidence for the economic necessity theory is considerable including empirical evidence coming from Parker and Newcombe (1987) who during their study of heroin addicts in Merseyside found that burglary rates increased with the increase of heroin usage. Also Ball et al(1983) found in their sample of 354 addicts, they each took part in on average 248 crime days per year when addicted compared with 41 crime days per year when not addicted (study took place in US). Results from a study by Parker et al also found that heroin users with criminal records offending increased after dependency and also ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The evidence for the economic necessity model may seem convincing but it does have its critics. Bean and Wilkinson(1988) found in their sample of 83 Class A drug users that 93% had had previous criminal convictions prior to drug use. Also there are a number of studies, which show that though users are prescribed heroin/methadone criminal activity is reduced but does not actually stop (Bennet and Wright 1986 and more recently Jarvis and Parker 1990). In addition to these results Burr(1987) and Weipert (1979) also both established in their studies that discontinued heroin usage of prescribing of methadone did not lead to ex users ceasing criminal activity. The suggestions raised in the studies critical of the ‘drug causes crime’ explanation, relate to the second theory exploring the heroin/acquisitive crime link, which is ‘crime causes drug use’.

Some researchers suggest that in users criminality precedes drug dependence. This outlook does contain support including Mott and Taylor (1974) and also Auld et al (1986) among others. The latter suggested that young working class people, suffering from unemployment and low benefits became involved in criminal activity to obtain a better standard of living. Within this lifestyle they come into contact with heroin, which leads to usage and eventually dependence. Burr (1987) concludes of heroin users that ‘use of heroin was an extension rather than cause of delinquent behaviour’. This feeling coincides with Bean and Wilkinson’s 1988 study of dependant heroin users in which 50% of the sample where criminal before drug taking. A point that must be made is that a number of the studies mentioned may also be looking at other types of crime, not just acquisitive crime exclusively but are used as evidence for each theory. Also another point to be made on, behalf of both theories referred to is that, the use of criminal convictions as a measure of criminality can be flawed as convictions do not accurately portray the amount of criminal activity took part in by users, just the amount they are caught carrying out.

The studies cited as evidence for the ‘crime causes drug use do not explain why the majority of criminals carrying out acquisitive crime do not become heroin users whereas it can be said that the majority of heroin users become involved in some sort of acquisitive crime at some point in their drug dependency.

The third main theory that crime and drug use are related to other factors is a less developed therefore less supported explanation although it is worth taking a look at. This theory suggests that the heroin/acquisitive crime link is dependent on a number of complex factors. Mott and Taylor (1974) propose that heroin and crime are both just parts of a deviant lifestyle in which participation in deviant sub cultures makes contact with drugs more accessible and usage is just another deviant behaviour along with crime, to take part in. This thesis is known as the lifestyle model and is also supported by Hull et al (1993) who suggests that certain life choices or circumstances increase the likelihood of both drug use and criminal involvement, there can be no support to either causal explanations.

Hammersley et al (1987,1989) studies, also support this theory which rejects the causal theories and suggest that there are a range of ‘psycho social and cultural mechanisms which influence the relationship between crime and drugs’ these results coincide with the thesis of Mott and Taylor (1974) mentioned above.

Moving away from the proposed explanations of the heroin/acquisitive crime link this paper will now examine the extent of this problem. A detailed report carried out by the ISDD (1994) attempted to quantify the extent of dependant heroin usage in the England and Wales and the cost to society of acquisitive crime associated with these users. the report, using a number of resources calculated the there were approximately between 32,000 and 80,000 dependant heroin users in England and Wales in the early 90’s. By using the figure that each dependant user consumes one third of a gram per day, with that gram costing between £50-£60 the ISDD calculated that each user spends on average approximately between 3,800 and 7,500 per year on heroin. Multiplying this figure with the number of dependent users it was estimated that the total annual cost of heroin consumed by dependant users were approximately between, £129,000,000 and £600,000,000. this figure alone seems astounding and brings to life the fact that heroin usage in the UK is a big problem. By looking at a number of studies and statistics the ISDD proposed that 16% to 48% of the total cash income of dependent heroin users is derived from acquisitive crime. Using this figure in conjunction with the factors above, a figure of, between £19million and £288million is given as the total cost of heroin funded by income from acquisitive crime. It is a well-known fact that the majority of stolen goods, whatever the reason they are stolen, are sold on for less than their original value. By using figures compiled the Greater Manchester police among others the ISDD assumed stolen goods are sold on for approximately a third of their value, making the direct cost of acquisitive crime, committed by dependent heroin users, to finance their habit is approximately between £58million and £864 million. This figure accounts for around 1%-21% of all acquisitive crime in England and Wales in the early 90’s.

The ISDD report does conclude it self to be of ‘moderate quality’, due to the lack and quality of previous information and research, however, it is still safe to say that acquisitive crime related to heroin dependency is a substantial and very costly problem.

In conclusion there seems to be no doubt at all that heroin dependence in the UK is related to increased amounts of acquisitive crime whether dependence causes it crime or vice versa. The only obvious solution to decrease this amount of crime is to legalise heroin, so that addicts can get the drug on prescription, one only has to go back to alcohol prohibition in 1920’s America, although it resulted in lower usage, alcohol was still produced (through organised crime) but was of low quality and could in some cases be quite dangerous. This is exactly what is taking place with heroin at present. Some might say that it would cost the NHS too much but that probably won’t be as much as the cost of acquisitive crime associated with usage is costing the nation, as well as stopping the multi million pound heroin trade. Also through legalisation there would not be the adulteration, diluting and contamination of the substance that there is while criminals control it distribution.

References

Auld, J., Dorn, N. & South, N.(1986) Irregular work, irregular pleasures: heroin in the 1980’s. in Seddon, T.(2000) Exploring the drug-crime link: theoretical policy and research issues. Journal of Social Policy 29,1 95-107.

Ball, J., Schaffer, J. & Nurco, D.(1983) the day to day criminality of heroin addicts in Baltimore – a study in the continuity of offence rates. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 12, 119-142 in Best, D., Lan-ho, M., Gossop, M., Sidwell, C., & Strang, J. (2002) Understanding the developmental relationship between drug use and crime. Addiction Research and Theory 9, 151-64.

Bean, P (2002) Drugs and Crime. Culloptom, Devon: Willan Publishing.

Bean, P & Wilikinson, C (1988) Drug taking, crime and the illicit supply system. British journal of Addiction 83, 533-9 in Seddon, T.(2000) Exploring the drug-crime link: theoretical policy and research issues. Journal of Social Policy 29,1 95-107.

Bennet, T. & Wright, R. (1986) Drugs and Crime: the Results of Research on Drug Taking and Interviewing Arrestees. Home Office Study no183 in Seddon, T.(2000) Exploring the drug-crime link: theoretical policy and research issues. Journal of Social Policy 29,1 95-107.

Best, D., Lan-ho, M., Gossop, M., Sidwell, C., & Strang, J. (2002) Understanding the developmental relationship between drug use and crime. Addiction Research and Theory 9, 151-64.

Burr, A. (1987) Chasing the Dragon: heroin misuse, delinquency and crime in the context of south London culture. British Journal of Criminology 27:4, 333-57.

Chaiken, J. and Chaiken, M. (1990) in Bean, P (2002) Drugs and Crime. Culloptom, Devon: Willan Publishing.

Hall, W., Bell, J. & Carless, J. (1993) Crime and drug use among applicants for methadone maintenece. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 31, 123-29 in Best, D., Lan-ho, M., Gossop, M., Sidwell, C., & Strang, J. (2002) Understanding the developmental relationship between drug use and crime. Addiction Research and Theory 9, 151-64.

Hammersley, R., Forsyth, A., Morrison, V & Davies, J (1989) The relationship between crime and opiod use. British Journal of Addiction 84:9, 1029-43 in Best, D., Lan-ho, M., Gossop, M., Sidwell, C., & Strang, J. (2002) Understanding the developmental relationship between drug use and crime. Addiction Research and Theory 9, 151-64.

Dorn, N., Baker, O. & Seddon, T.(1994) Paying for Heroin: estimating the financial cost of acquisitive crime committed by dependent heroin users in England and Wales. ISDD (Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence) London .

Jarvis, G. &Parker, H (1990) Can medical treatment reduce crime amongst young heroin users? Home Office Research & Statistical Department Research Bulletin 28 29-32 in Seddon, T.(2000) Exploring the drug-crime link: theoretical policy and research issues. Journal of Social Policy 29,1 95-107.

Mott, J. & Taylor, M. (1974) Delinquency Amongst Opiate Users. Home Office Study No23 in Best, D., Lan-ho, M., Gossop, M., Sidwell, C., & Strang, J. (2002) Understanding the developmental relationship between drug use and crime. Addiction Research and Theory 9, 151-64.

Parker, H. & Newcombe, R. (1987) Heroin and acquisitive crime in an English community. British Journal of Sociology 38:3 311-80.

Seddon, T.(2000) Exploring the drug-crime link: theoretical policy and research issues. Journal of Social Policy 29,1 95-107.

Weipert, G.P., D’Orban, P. & Bewley, T. (1979) Delinquency by opiate addicts treated at two London clinics. British Journal of Psychiatry 134, 14-23 in Seddon, T.(2000) Exploring the drug-crime link: theoretical policy and research issues. Journal of Social Policy 29,1 95-107.