The nature of the drugs–crime connection

The term ‘drugs–crime connection’ refers to the relationship between drug misuse and criminal
behavior.. Hence, the first question to ask is, ‘What kind of link?’ There are many ways in which
drug use and criminal behavior might be connected. However, the association between drug use
and crime might not be causal at all. It is possible that drug use and criminal behaviour merely co-
exist in perhaps rather chaotic lifestyles of some individuals: neither drug use can be seen as
causing crime, nor can crime be seen as causing drug use.

The concept of ‘drug-related crime’ includes a number of crime types, including: ‘drug offences’,
systemic crimes committed as part of the functioning of drugs markets, and crimes committed as a
result of drug use or drugs consumed as a result of crime. The ‘drugs–crime connection’ refers
mainly to this latter group. The second main finding relating to the ‘drugs–crime connection’ is that
there are a number of different ways in which drugs and crime might be associated

There are four main types of connection.

 First, drug use might cause crime. This might occur when drug users seek illegal funds to
pay for their drug use.
 Second, crime might cause drug use. This might occur when surplus funds from crime are
used to purchase drugs.
 Third, drug use and criminal behavior might both be caused by a third variable. This might
be a common individual or social characteristic (poor parenting) or a cluster of variables
that affect both drug use and crime (e.g. various variables relating to social disadvantage).
 Fourth, drugs and crime might not be causally linked at all. This might occur when certain
kinds of deviant behavior co-exist among individuals or groups. The forms of behaviour
may be connected, but no one can be seen as the cause of the others.

Research on the ‘drugs–crime connection’ has also investigated different types of drugs and
different types of crimes. Drug use covers a wide range of drugs from aspirins to heroin. Criminal
behaviour covers a wide range of crimes from tax evasion to homicide. In practice, drugs and crime
research tends to be limited to just certain types of drugs and crime.

These drugs and offences tend to be those that are linked to the main theoretical perspectives on the
connection (discussed below). In practice, the most common drugs investigated in the drugs–crime
connection are heroin, crack and cocaine, and the most common offences are burglary, theft and
robbery.

‘Alcohol–crime connection’
The concept of the ‘alcohol–crime connection’ is similar in many ways to the ‘drugs–crime
connection’. It refers to a statistical association and causal connection between alcohol use and
crime. Alcohol use can be linked to crime directly through various alcohol offences, including
drink- ing driving offences, drunkenness offences and public order offences involving alcohol.
However, it also refers to other kinds of connection in which alcohol use might be associated with
other kinds of offences. One of the main differences between the drugs–crime connections and the
alcohol–crime connection is that the former focuses mainly on property offences, while the latter
focuses mainly on violent offences
Crime and drug use are reciprocal
This explanation is based on the idea that drug use sometimes causes crime and crime sometimes
causes drug use. The concept is usually applied within rather than between individuals. In other
words, it usually refers to the idea that an individual might sometimes commit crime because of
drug use and sometimes use drugs because of crime. This variation can be viewed over longer
periods of time (at one point in time drug use caused crime and at another crime caused drug use)
or over shorter periods of time (sometimes drug use leads to crime and other times crime leads to

drug use). The causal connection 123One example of a reciprocal relationship over longer periods
of time is provided by Simpson (2003) in an ethnographic study of 88 individuals in the north of
England. One of the interviewees explained that the connec- tion between drug use and crime in his
case had changed over time. At first, he said that he committed burglary ‘for the buzz’. Later on, he
explained, ‘it was just for the blow’ (p. 315). Hough (1996) provides an example of variations over
shorter periods of time. In the case of prostitution and drug use, he argues, the two might be
mutually reinforcing: ‘There can be a complex dynamic between prostitu-tion and drug
dependence: prostitution can be a method of financing drug use, and drug use can be a palliative to
prostitution’ (Hough 1996: 14).

Drug use causes crime

A large proportion of the qualitative statements found in the literature refer to the causal effect of
drug use on crime. The statements can be divided into

(a) economic necessity,

(b) courage to offend,

(c) pharmacologica effects,

(d) amplification and

(e) crime by association.

Economic necessity

The economic necessity argument is based on the idea that drug users need money for drugs and
resort to crime to obtain them. Most of the qualita- tive studies reviewed that provide quotations
from individuals on the role of economic necessity in their offending were based on studies of
prostitutes.

Courage to offend

Some studies have argued that drug use can cause crime in the sense that drugs can be used to
provide the necessary courage to offend. This argu- ment is used more often to describe the links
between alcohol use and crime. However, it is sometimes used to explain links between other types
of drug and crime. The explanation is different from the ‘pharmacological effects’ argument in that
the subject in a sense consciously chooses to use drugs to provide the courage to offend.
Pharmacological effects

The pharmacological effect argument is based on the idea that the effect of certain kinds of drugs or
certain combinations of drugs can lead to the commission of crime. The link may be direct (or
almost direct), whereby the drug generates the immediate motivation for crime. For example, the
consumption of alcohol might lead directly to a mood of aggression, which might lead to violent
crime. The link may also be indirect, whereby druguse affects judgement, which in turn affects
decision making. For example, drug use may result in the decision to commit a risky burglary that
might not otherwise have been attempted.

How can the connection be explained?

The main explanations for the drugs–crime connection tend to follow the causal and non-causal
models described above. While there are a number of theories available to explain each of the
connections, there are some that are more popular than others. The idea that drug use might cause
crime can be explained by the pharmacological effects of the drugs. However, these are the least
popular of the explanations. They are usually directed at the relationship between drug use and
violent crime. Pharmacological explanations are rarely used to explain the connection between drug
use and property crime. However, they have sometimes been used to explain drug use as a
protective factor on crime, in that the effects of drug use might sometimes be so inhibiting that they
reduce the risk of offending.

The most popular explanations of the ‘drugs-cause-crime’ model are the economic explanations,
the most common of which are the ‘enslavement’ or ‘economic necessity’ arguments. The idea that
crime might cause drug use has also been explained using pharmacological approaches. These
include the idea of ‘chemical recreation’ as a means of celebrating the successful commission of
crime. However, economic explanations are currently the most popular. These include the idea that
surplus funds from crime can be used to finance drug use. Perhaps the most popular of the ‘crime-
causes-drug-use’ theories are the ‘lifestyle’ explanations. These suggest that drug use is part and
parcel of the criminal lifestyle that revolves around criminal behaviour and having a good time.

Crime causes drug use

The most common crime-causes-drug-use explanation is that the proceeds of crime are used to
finance pleasure-seeking activities. In their study of street robbers in St Louis, Missouri, Wright
and Decker (1997) used the concept of ‘life as a party’ to explain why offenders took drugs and the
role of drugs in ‘keeping the party going’. One of the robbers explained that money from crime
might be used to buy drugs or alcohol: I’m walking around, sometimes if I have any money in my
pocket I go get high, buy a bag of [marijuana], a forty-ounce (malt liquor) or something. Get high
and then I ain’t got no more money and then the highness makes you start thinking until you go out
and do [a robbery].(Wright and Decker 1997: 36)

Another armed robber also mentioned that the money from crime could be used to purchase
alcohol: ‘[I think about armed robbery when] I need some money. I like money in my pocket, I like
going out and getting drunk’(Wright and Decker 1997: 36).Brain et al. (1998) provide an example
of a man who claimed that he would commit crime (burglaries) and only afterwards would think
about using drugs: ‘It’s just that I’ve chosen to spend the proceeds on drugs’ (p. 43).
Drug markets and crime
Drug markets provide opportunities for crime and generate various forms of criminal behaviour.
Street violence, in particular, is often associated with drug dealing and drug markets. Lupton et al.
(2002)identified, in their UK study, three ways in which drug markets generate violence: to enforce
payment of drug debts, to resolve competition between dealers, and to sanction informants.

Crime as a motive for alcohol and drug use

Those arrestees who had committed one or more acquisitive crimes and used one or more illicit
drugs within the last 12 months were asked if they believed that there was a connection between
their drug use and offending. Twelve per cent of respondents said that they used the money
generated from crime to buy drugs. Hammersley et al. (2003) asked their sample of young
offenders about the nature of the relationship between drug use and offending. Of the 269 who
provided answers, 25 per cent agreed or strongly agreed that sometimes they had taken alcohol or
drugs to get thecourage to commit crimes. Parker’s (1996) study of 66 probationers showed that
crime sometimes motivated drug use.

Types of explanation
The connection between drug use and crime has been discussed in the literature mainly in terms of
statistical associations and causal connections.

Statistical associations

A statistical association between drugs and crime tells us that when you find one of the variables
you tend to find the other (Kenny 1979). Research on the drugs–crime connection has frequently
shown a strong correlation between drug use and criminal behaviour (Harrison and Gfroerer 1992).
French et al. (2000) suggest that research studies have established that the use of illicit drugs is
strongly related to the commission of criminal acts.

Yacoubian and Kane (1998) similarly argue that the relationship between illicit drug use and
criminal activity has been repeatedly demonstrated over the past few decades and that there is
considerable evidence to suggest that drug use is associated with criminality. However, they go on
to argue that the debate continues as to whether drugs are contributing factors, correlates or
determinants of criminality.

Causal connections

A causal connection means something more than a statistical association.. In other words, drug use
would only cause crime if crime were one of the effects of drug use. There are fairly well-
established essential criteria for establishing a causal con- nection.

Explaining the drugs–crime connection 75Types of connection perhaps one connection between
drug use and crime that should not be overlooked is that the possession, manufacture and
distribution of certain classified drugs are crimes in themselves (US Department of Justice 1994).

However, in most respects the discussion about the connection between drugs and crime concerns
whether one causes the other.

Causal models
There are a number of ways in which drugs and crime might be connected.

These are sometimes referred to as causal models. The number of models presented varies between
authors. The most common number is four models (White 1990). These are often described as:

• The ‘drug-use-causes-crime’ model;

• The ‘crime-causes-drug-use’ model;

• The ‘reciprocal’ model; and

• The ‘common-cause’ model.

Some writers include a fifth model sometimes referred to as the coincidence model (Pernanen
1982).

The first two models – the drug-use-causes-crime model and the crime-causes-drug-use model – are
the most simple to understand. Brownsteinand Crossland (2002) note that they both have their
supporters. At the most basic level, the models state that drug use leads to crime or crime leads to
drug use. These authors note their appealing simplicity and point out that some government policies
and programmes have been developed on the basis of these models. However, even these most
basic models have some conceptual complexities. One possible variant is whether the rela- tionship
is direct or indirect. A direct relationship is one in which drug use leads directly to crime with no
intervening variables. The clearest example of this would be the case of someone consuming
alcohol and then violently attacking the person next to them. The consumption of alcohol could be
seen as directly generating the violent attack. An indirect relationship is one in which drug use
leads to crime through an intervening variable. This might be the case when the consumption of
alcohol leads to a violent attack as a result of crowded conditions in a pub setting.

The third model – the reciprocal model – is a more complex model and argues that drug use
sometimes causes crime and crime sometimes causes drug use. This model is based on the idea that
the relationship between drug use and crime is bi-directional.. (2001) argue that drug use and 76
Understanding drugs, alcohol and crimecrime are causally linked and mutually reinforcing. Illegal
behaviour might lead to the initiation of drug use and serious drug use might lead to the continuity
of illegal behaviour.

The fourth model – the common-cause model – proposes that drug use does not cause crime, and
that crime does not cause drug use. Instead, they are both caused by a third or common variable. It
shows that crime is not an effect of drug use and that drug use is not an effect of crime. The
relationship between drug use and crime is, therefore, spurious.

The fifth model – the coincidence model – could also be described as a spuriousness model. This
model purports that drug use and crime are not causally connected. Instead, they exist within a
nexus of correlated variables and problematic behaviours. Pernanen (1982) provides an example of
the pub setting in which alcohol is consumed and crimes are planned or committed. However, they
all occur in a complex setting in which alcohol use cannot be independently connected to the
occurrence of crime. The conceptual problems relating to the coincidence model, within the
typology of models, is that it is a second form of spuriousness model and that it is similar in some
ways to the common-cause model. White (1990) argues that the common-cause model and the
coincidence model are both spuriousness models. However, they are both useful in that they
describe two different mechanisms. In the case of the common-cause model, the link between drug
use and crime is caused by a third explanatory variable. In

Onset and intensification

An important issue that is not made entirely clear in the literature is what precisely theories of the
drugs–crime connection are trying to explain. The major confusion concerns whether the theories
are attempting to explain the onset or the intensification of drug use and crime. Hammersley et al.
(1989) assert that the literature has confused two kinds of cause that are logically distinct. They
describe the first cause as the ‘developmental’ cause, where drug use leads users into crime for the
first time or where crime leads an offender into using drugs for the first time. The second type of
cause (which might be referred to as the ‘intensification’ cause) is described as occurring once both
drug use and offending are established Explaining the drugs–crime connection 77and concerns the
way in which the need for drugs might cause crime, or the proceeds of crime might cause drug use.

Risk and protective factors

Another conceptual problem concerns assumptions about the direction of the effect. It is commonly
believed that drug use causes or intensifies crime or that crime causes or intensifies drug use. White
(1990) explains that this view has been the cornerstone of US drug policies. Brownstein and
Crossland (2002), as mentioned above, have noted that many policies and programmes have been
developed on the basis of the direct cause model. This is also true of British drug policy. A key aim
of the govern- ment’s updated drug strategy is to reduce crime by reducing the availability and use
of illicit substances (Home Office 2002). However, it is possible that any causal relationship
between drug use and crime need not necessarily be in the direction of drug use causing more crime
or crime causing more drug use. Instead, the use of certain drug types might be negatively
correlated with crime. Drug use might cause a reduction in crime or crime might cause a reduction
in drug use. Using heroin, for example, might ameliorate aggressive impulses and might make the
users physically unable to commit certain crimes. In other words, drug use might be either a risk
factor or a protective factor for crime, depending on other conditions.

Drug misuse causes crime

One of the most common explanations of the drugs–crime relationship is that drug use causes
crime. While there is some support for this view, there is some variation in the published accounts
about the way in which drug use might cause crime. There are at least three broad categories of
explan-ation:

 psychopharmacological explanations,
 economic explanations and
 Drug-lifestyle explanations.

Psychopharmacological explanations
Psychopharmacological explanations concern the way in which the chemical properties of drugs
interact with the human organism to produce specific behavioural outcomes. These can be divided
into explanations that focus on direct effects (no intermediary factors implicated) and indirect
effects (intermediary factors implicated).

Direct effects

Goode argues that all psychopharmacological explanations are direct cause explanations.

The psychopharmacological model says that drugs cause violence because of their direct effects. As
a result of taking a specific drug, this model argues, users become irritable, excitable, impatient,
and irrational and, hence, are much more likely to engage in criminal behavior. (Goode 1997)

Goldstein (1985) also describes the psychopharmacological model as a direct effect model and
argues that ‘some individuals, as a result of short or long term ingestion of specific substances, may
become excitable, irrational, and may exhibit violent behavior’ (p. 494). Brochu (2001) also notes
that certain drugs ‘act on specific areas of the nervous system, including the frontal lobe and the
limbic system, where the centres of aggressiveness and impulsiveness are located’.

While these kinds of explanation are often classified as ‘direct effect’ explanations, the links
between consumption of a drug and the commis- sion of a crime are unlikely to be instantaneous. In
most cases, it can be assumed that there is some kind of intermediary mechanism at work.

However, the main distinction between direct and indirect effect explan- ations used in the drugs-
and-crime literature is that the former (direct

Direct effects are defined as those that are based on psychopharmacological processes alone.
Indirect effects are those based on psychopharmacological processes plus the influence of one or
more external variables.

Indirect effects

In practice, the psychopharmacological effects of drugs on crime are likely to operate indirectly
through one or more mediating or moderating Explaining the drugs–crime connection 81factors.
These are likely to be social or environmental elements of the situation in which drug use or crime
takes place. Parker and Auerhahn (1998) report that one of the strongest findings from their own
review of the literature on the links between alcohol and violence was the over- whelming
importance of context in the relationship between substance use and violent behaviour. They
conclude that ‘the social environment is a much more powerful contributor to the outcome of
violent behavior than are pharmacological factors associated with any of the substances reviewed
here’ (p. 306

Relevant moderators include: situational stressors and frustrators;expectancy effects (personal and
cultural beliefs about the effect ofthe drug on behaviour, and local norms about tolerable versus
unacceptable conduct when under the influence); disinhibition; impaired cognitive functioning
(self-control, decision-making ability, reduced attention to situational cues, reduced self-attention);
social threats to self-identity or self-esteem. (MacCoun et al. 2002: 6)

Risk and protective factors

For the most part, psychopharmacological explanations have focused on the ways in which drug
use causes or intensifies criminal behaviour. However, there is also evidence that the
psychopharmacological effects of some drug types can have the opposite effect and prevent or
reduce 82 Understanding drugs, alcohol and crimeoffending.

Economic explanations
Economic explanations are based mainly on the relationship between habitual drug use (such as
heroin, crack and cocaine use) and income- generating crime (such as theft, burglary, robbery and
fraud). The most common economic model is referred to as the ‘enslavement’ or ‘economic
necessity’ model (Goldstein 1985). Goode provides a useful summary of the ‘enslavement’
viewpoint:

Addicts and abusers become ‘enslaved’, unable to control their use of the drug; they spend so much
money on it that they are unable to support their habit by working at a regular, legitimate job.
Consequently, they must engage in crime; they have no choice in the matter. (Goode 1997)

Brochu provides more detail on the economic forces that might make crime an economic
necessity:For illicit substances, the most significant relationship between drugs and crime starts
with the economic dimension associated with purchasing certain drugs. Heroin, cocaine and similar
drugs can produce dependence in some users. Someone who has become dependent on one of these
products generally uses it several times a day to prevent the onset of physiological or psychological
withdrawal. As a result of such habituation, the substance becomes terribly costly for the addict.

Hence, the criminal activity of some users who can no longer control their habit can be attributed to
a need for money due to dependence on drugs that are brought and sold on the black market at
prices that are too high for their income from licit sources. (Brochu 2001)

Property and violent crimes

The economic necessity argument is based on the idea that drug users will seek to commit crimes to
pay for their drug use. Hence, most writers describe the connection between drug use and various
forms of property crime, including theft, shoplifting, burglary, handling, fraud and drug sup-ply
offences (Bennett 2000). However, there is a growing body of literature on the links between drug
use and violent crime. In some cases, such as street robbery, property crime may also involve
violence. There are a number of reasons why drug users might choose violent property crimes as a
source of income for drugs. One reason is the problem of raising money for drugs in the middle of
the night. Opportunities for residential burglary might be limited because most dwellings are likely
to be occupied. Opportunities for shoplifting are also likely to be limited and burglaries against
non-dwellings (such as shops) are made more difficult by the security devices protecting these
properties at night.

Baumer et al. (1998) argue that habitual drug users (especially crack users) are likely at night to
prefer street robbery. They argue that robbery usually nets cash directly and is more easily
perpetrated during the hours of dark- ness when the streets are less crowded. Preble and Casey
(1969) also argue that an important advantage of crimes against the person is that these offences
yield cash which does not have to be sold at a discount, as does stolen property. It is easily
concealed and can be easily exchanged directly for heroin. However, there are some disadvantages
to obtaining money for drugs from robbery. Goldstein (1985) believes that most heroin users will
avoid violent acquisitive crime if viable non-violent alternatives exist. This is because violent crime
is more dangerous and carries with it a threat of imprisonment if caught. However, he also notes
that on some occasions drug users may resort to violence because of the social context in which
economic crime is perpetrated. These include ‘the perpetrator’s own 84 Understanding drugs,
alcohol and crimenervousness, the victim’s reaction, weaponry (or the lack of it) carried by either
offender or victim, the intercession of bystanders, and so on’ (p. 496).

Mediating and moderating factors

The economic necessity argument is not intended to be a deterministic model of the relationship
between drug use and crime. It would be expected that in some circumstances neither habitual drug
use nor eco-nomic necessity would inevitably lead to crime. Brochu (2001), for example,
acknowledges that economic explanations do not apply to all users and that the relationship may be
affected by moderating factors. He notes that not all heroin and cocaine users become
pathologically addicted and not all fund their habits from crime. Some will find ways to use less,
take less expensive substitutes, or stop using for a while. Hunt (1991), for example, argues that
whether users of illicit psychoactive substances engage in criminal activity will depend on:

(a) the size of their income relative to the price of the product;

(b) how frequently they use drugs and how involved they are in the drug lifestyle; and

(c) their criminal history.

Crime causes drug misuse

While there are many theories purporting to explain how drug use causescrime, far fewer theories
have been offered to explain how crime causes drug use. The few theories that have been suggested
can be divided roughly into the same three groups:

 psychopharmacological explanations,
 economic explanations and
 criminal lifestyle explanations.

Psychopharmacological explanations

There are a number of ways in which crime can be linked to the psycho- pharmacological effects of
drugs. One common explanation is that drugs are used as part of the celebration of a successful
crime. Menard et al.(2001) suggest that criminals use drugs as a form of ‘chemical recreation’to
celebrate the successful commission of a crime, in the same way that people use alcohol to
celebrate birthdays and other special occasions.

The main process that links crime to drug use is through their perceived pleasurable effects. Crime,
therefore, may provide both the motivation for ‘chemical recreation’ (celebration of success) and
the resources for it (money to buy drugs and alcohol). A similar point has been made by

Another common link found in the literature between crime and drug use is the instrumental use of
drugs to facilitate the commission of crime. Offenders may sometimes use drugs to enable them to
commit crime.

Economic explanations
Economic explanations of the way in which crime causes drug use centre around the belief that
surplus funds obtained from crime can be spent on drugs. This explanation is similar to some of the
psychopharmacological explanations of the links between crime and drug use. However, economic
explanations focus more on funding drug use than on ‘chemical recreation’.

Collins et al. (1985), for example, note: ‘rather than the need for adrug compelling an individual
to commit robbery, the income generated from a robbery might provide the individual with extra
money to secure drugs and . . . place the

Reciprocal model

The reciprocal model maintains that both drug use causes crime and crime causes drug use. In other
words, it is based on the assumption that the causal order is bi-directional. On one occasion, drug
use might cause crime and on another crime might cause drug use. It has been argued that
reciprocal models have been under-explored in the criminological literature.

Common-cause model

The common-cause model holds that drug use does not cause crime, and that crime does not cause
drug use. Instead, they are both caused by a common factor. A variety of common factors have
been identified in the literature as possible causes of both drug use and crime. These have been
grouped below into three broad categories: psychological, social and environmental.

Psychological explanations

Psychological explanations describe how factors relating to the mind and behaviour of the
individual cause both drug use and crime. White and Gorman (2000) give some examples of the
kinds of psychological and other factors that have been implicated in the literature: ‘The common-
cause model postulates that substance use and crime do not have a direct causal link. Rather, they
are related because they share common causes (such Explaining the drugs–crime connection 89as
genetic or temperamental traits, antisocial personality disorder, [and] parental alcoholism)’ (p.
175).

Social explanations

Social explanations are concerned with social relationships and the way in which these might
influence both drug use and crime. An important com- mon cause is the role played by peer
pressure. Elliott et al. (1989) arguethat the most important influence on both substance use and
illegal behaviour is the extent of involvement with friends who are engaged in illegal behaviour
(including illicit drug use). White (1990) concluded from the results of a detailed review of the
literature that ‘Peer group influences are the best predictors of delinquency and drug use’ (p. 240).

Another common-cause explanation concerns the role of sub-cultural factors. The National
Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (1972) concluded that there is no evidence that
marihuana use causes crime.

Instead, the evidence suggests that cultural variables account for much of the apparent statistical
correlation. Wright and Decker (1997) drew atten- tion to the role played by ‘street culture’ in
explaining drugs-related nviolence. Another group of social explanations note the common-cause
role played by either drug or crime lifestyles. It is argued that certain aspects of a broader deviant
lifestyle can result in both drug use and crime(Walters 1994).

Environmental explanations

Environmental explanations describe how factors within the environment cause both drug use and
criminal behaviour. These include both the phys- ical environment and situational factors operating
at the time of commission of specific offences.

One of the oldest common-cause theories of the links between drug use and crime is social
disorganization theory developed at the University of Chicago during the 1920s and 1930s (Shaw
and McKay 1942). White and

Gorman (2000) apply the principles of social disorganization theory to 90 Understanding drugs,
alcohol and crimethe problem of explaining drugs and crime. They argue that rates of violent n
crime and exposure to drugs are both higher in neighbourhoods that are poor, densely populated,
racially segregated and composed of a transient population. More recent environmental theories of
the kind developed by

Wilson (1987) and others show that social exclusion, social disadvantage nand a lack of social
capital can be important mechanisms linking structuralcharacteristics to crime and illicit drug use.

Aspects of the physical and social environment can also play a role in generating the situational
factors that link drug use and crime. Parker andAuerhahn (1998) argue that environmental factors
are a more powerful predictor of violent behaviour among young drug users than pharmaco- logical
factors. Crime rates and alcohol use might both be high, for example, in situations in which young
people consume alcohol, such as at clubs, bars and entertainment areas (Fagan 1993). Proponents
of the rou- tine activities perspective argue that bars are crime hot spots because they bring together
motivated offenders and suitable targets in the absence of effective guardianship (Roncek and
Maier 1991)