Legal drugs raise pharmaceutical discussions regarding effects and side effects. Illegal drugs force assessment of additional subjects, together with where production, trafficking, and consumption are taking place and under what circumstances. (Gene Stephens, 1992). Thus, a thought of “drugs and crime” is a necessary prelude to considering everything else regarding illicit drugs. Illegal drugs—whether produced, consumed, or trafficked—and crime walks hand in hand.
This is so in part due to drug-control laws, in part due to some drugs’ psychopharmacological properties, and in part due to the nature of a given culture and society and how traffickers decide or are allowed to operate in such cultures and societies. (Gene Stephens, 1992). Drug-control laws as well as illegal-drug consumption combine to make a worldwide black market in which overwhelming amounts of money are made and extensive criminal behavior takes place. (Gene Stephens, 1992).
Applying plus avoiding the law in relationship to addiction, abuse, and pleasure seeking from drugs’ psychopharmacological properties come into view to induce most drug-related criminal behavior. Of all criminal activity related with the illegal-drug trade—from production and consumption to trafficking—trafficking is definitely the most significant due to the amount of underground money concentrated in somewhat few hands and due to the way many traffickers decide to spend or invest it.
(Inciardi, J (ed), 1999) A number of drugs are illegal by definition—national, state, and provincial legislatures and some dictatorships have so designated them. Among these are cocaine, heroin, a variety of forms of cannabis, and several “designer drugs” for example methamphetamine. Producing, consuming, and trading these drugs are at present illegal or are sharply curtailed in the majority countries, a position seconded by international conventions and multilateral treaties. (Inciardi, J (ed), 1999)
Efforts by law-enforcement agents to pertain antidrug laws and by people in the illegal-drug business to avoid those laws make crimes—providing or consuming an illegal product, or illegally depriving, disrupting, or destroying people, property, as well as institutions in the process of servicing or prohibiting a market. (Inciardi, J (ed), 1999) Were it not for the laws, the production, consumption, and trade of drugs would not be illegal and consequently not criminal. However crimes might still result.
Drug-related crimes emanate from more than simple legislative artifacts that parliaments may make and unmake in accordance with their political will. (Pamela J. Shoemaker, 1989). A number of addictive drugs (e. g. , crack cocaine) have psychopharmacological properties that may tempt violent behavior against children, spouses, the unborn, and random bystanders. Even if drugs were legal, wholesalers might compete for markets and territory, spreading some of the violence and corruption that at present accompany the illegal trade.
(Pamela J. Shoemaker, 1989). Thus, whether from some drugs’ psychopharmacological properties or from the truth that production, trafficking, and consumption are illegal and sometimes escorted by marketing violence, crimes are committed. The large amount of money associated with producing, trading, consuming, and banning illicit drugs makes the magnitude of criminal behavior and its penalty of more than passing note. (Pamela J. Shoemaker, 1989).
In principal consuming areas for example North America and Western Europe, it is now almost popular to mention a tripartite classification scheme of psychopharmacological effects, economic-compulsive drives, as well as systemic violence to recognize the relationship of drugs to crime, mainly violent crime against people and property. The psychopharmacological dimension, mainly with crack cocaine, relates to people’s becoming illogical, excited, agitated, impetuous, uncontrollably angry, and physically abusive, even to the point of committing murder.
(Joseph F. Sheley, James D. Wright, 1995). The economic-compulsive dimension is associated with criminal acts to get money for personal drug consumption (for example through burglaries and robberies). The systemic dimension relates to drug syndicates, associations, gangs, and smugglers protecting their product or turf from law-enforcement officials or from each other by whatever means necessary. (Gene Stephens, 1992). We must add a fourth dimension to this standard tripartite investigation of crime and drugs.
This relates to police forces, militaries, drug enforcement agents, border-patrol officers, judges, plus politicians at all levels who either look for personal gain from public office or otherwise permit themselves to be corrupted by greed and rationalization. This part of the drugs-crime nexus is becoming more upsetting globally for the reason that personal resistance to underground money emerges to be declining. (Joseph F. Sheley, James D. Wright, 1995). To the extent that psychopharmacological connections exist (as, for instance, with crack cocaine), the relationship is reasonably straightforward.
People consume crack cocaine, and they sometimes get nervous and violent and hurt others or themselves. Violence directed against others is generally termed criminal. (Joseph F. Sheley, James D. Wright, 1995). Though, not all drugs have violence-producing psychopharmacological effects. Certainly, the set and setting for drug taking may even contribute to a reduction in social violence. In the 1960s, for instance, marijuana consumption in the United States and Western Europe was linked with subcultures that avoided violence, mainly the violence of the Vietnam War.
Love and peace turned out to be symbols not merely of a drug subculture however of antiviolence. (Joseph F. Sheley, James D. Wright, 1995). In taking into account psychopharmacology and the criminality of violence directed toward others, one have to keep in mind that drug use and drug abuse produce overhead consequences for society that are light years apart. (Kathleen Auerhahn, Robert Nash Parker, 1998) Occasional consumption of cocaine or crack by a small fragment of a country’s population likely produces little widespread social harm.
Drug abuse by a considerable portion of a country’s population—mainly of cocaine or crack—cannot be viewed in such benign terms. (Kathleen Auerhahn, Robert Nash Parker, 1998) Concerning economic-compulsive relationships (people stealing so as to buy drugs), due to empirical evidence hardly anyone dares assert definitive causal connections except when crack is involved. (Kathleen Auerhahn, Robert Nash Parker, 1998). Some observers conclude that drug taking does not source crime, mainly property crime, so much as it speeds up it, mostly among poor drug takers in countries whose criminal laws have driven up drug prices the most.
“It’s the high prices of drugs on the black market that create an incentive to property crime, writes Lana Harrison. ” (Kathleen Auerhahn, Robert Nash Parker, 1998) Consequently, there likely exists a false relationship between illicit-drug use and property crime in the sense that both are frequently related to other causes. But hardly anyone denies the accelerator effect of drugs on crime. (Benedikt Fischer, Louis Glicksman, Maritt Kirst, Wendy Medved, Jurgen Rehm, 2001). Some observers hold responsible society for “structural conditions” (e. g.
, poverty) that push people into both crime and drugs or view that “deviant behaviors take place within the context of a general deviance syndrome”. (Benedikt Fischer, Louis Glicksman, Maritt Kirst, Wendy Medved, Jurgen Rehm, 2001). Be that as it may, drug use, mainly drug abuse in across-the-board prohibition countries, increases as well as sustains criminal behavior. Money and addiction make more money plus more drugs necessary. Inasmuch as prices are inclined to be highest in prohibition countries with the most stringent laws, more money and most likely more crime are required to service abuse or addiction there.
(Benedikt Fischer, Louis Glicksman, Maritt Kirst, Wendy Medved, Jurgen Rehm, 2001). Criminality associated with systemic violence shifts our concentration away from consumers to major, midsize, and even some small traffickers. There is a definite bravado associated with the way of life of major traffickers that makes systemic violence and violent risk taking an inherent part of the way they do business. (Benedikt Fischer, Louis Glicksman, Maritt Kirst, Wendy Medved, Jurgen Rehm, 2001). This behavior is associated to money and what major traffickers do with it.
Aside from engaging in obvious consumption, making sanitized business investments in normal economies, and developing modern service-based regional strongholds, major and midsize traffickers often penetrate and corrupt regional and national governments; make alliances with terrorist organizations or antistate groups; assassinate uncooperative people plus murder unfortunate bystanders; threaten judges, law-enforcement agents, and ordinary citizens; and work to make an antistate completely outside the rule of any semblance of national law.
Beyond that, their predations denigrate life, destroy families, and weaken culture and social norms —all in the name of making drugs available to ready consumers. (Bennett, T, 1990) Petty street vendors are often far removed from such impacts, and we must permit that such a huge assault on civilized decency cannot necessarily be attributed to them. (Alfred Blumstein, 1995). However, it comes into view the isolated entrepreneurial streetcorner vendor is more and more being replaced by network vendors eventually tied to major and middle-ranking traffickers.
To the extent that this is true, one would expect almost all trafficking to hasten processes of social disorganization. (Bennett, T, 1990) The assaults on government—even permitting that some governments may be worthy of assault and their laws suitably subverted—create substantial social and economic overhead and institutional waste and debris, an effect mainly pronounced in countries enjoying a modicum of lawful government and rule of law. Several people view most of these activities as criminal. (Alfred Blumstein, 1995). Numerous traffickers are masters at committing systemic violence and at corrupting public institutions and people.
Police forces, judiciaries, military officers, politicians, people of all walks of life are recognized to subvert public honor for private gain. (Alfred Blumstein, 1995). The apparent gravity of the corruptive-criminality connection is, certainly, culturally specific; some cultures are more open-minded than others of private gains associated with public service. However, it comes into view that drug barons have characteristically exceeded the standard that divides honor from dishonor in virtually every country in which they have operated, even bringing presidents and military commanders into their influence, if not employ.
(Pearson, G. , 1999) So should anything be done? Can anything be done? Obviously they must and can, but conventional wisdom regarding prospects and possibilities needs to change. A realization has to develop that supply suppression will not resolve consumption problems. The economics are against it, risk-taking operatives are too abundant, and the corrupting influence of drug money is too pervasive. (Pearson, G. , 1999) Since drugs are here to stay. The time has come to throw away the notion of a “drug-free society. ” (Pearson, G.
, 1999) So we have to focus on learning to live with drugs in such a manner that they do the slightest possible harm. to this point as I can determine, the societies that have proved most victorious in lessening drug-related harm aren’t those that have hunted to expel drugs, however those that have understood how to control as well as manage drug use by means of community discipline, together with the establishment of influential social norms. (Benedikt Fischer, Louis Glicksman, Maritt Kirst, Wendy Medved, Jurgen Rehm, 2001).
There is a broad range of option in drug-policy options between the free-market approach supported by Milton Friedman and Thomas Szasz, as well as the zero-tolerance approach of William Bennett. (Jordan Goodman, Paul E. Lovejoy, Andrew Sherratt, 1995). These alternatives fall under the notion of harm reduction. That thought embraces that drug strategies need to focus on reducing harm, whether caused by drugs or by the prohibition of drugs. Also it holds that disease and death can be lessened even among people who cannot or will not, stop taking drugs. (Jordan Goodman, Paul E. Lovejoy, Andrew Sherratt, 1995)