|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| ||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2010. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 52
The Impact of Substance Abuse on
Criminal Careers
Eric D. Wish and Bruce D. Johnson
OVERVIEW
Approach
This paper reviews what is known
about how illicit drug use affects the pa-
rameters of criminal careers, especially
crime rates, and suggests directions that
future research should take to fill the gaps
in current knowledge about drug use and
crime. To accomplish these goals, we
have focused on the small number of
studies of drug use that permit the com-
putation of crime rates and that provide
important implications for research. We
have drawn heavily on our own research
and that of our colleagues.
In taking this approach, we have ex-
cluded many excellent studies. The inter
Eric D. Wish and Bruce D. Johnson are research
staff members at Narcotic and Drug Research, Inc.,
New York City. Points of view or opinions in this
paper do not necessarily represent the official posi-
tion or policies of Narcotic and Drug Research, Inc.
The authors would like to thank Lee Robins and
Mary Toborg for their comments on earlier drafts of
this paper.
52
ested reader may wish to refer to a num-
ber of comprehensive reviews of the
drugs and crime literature (Tinklenberg,
1973; McGIothlin, 1979; Weissman, 1979;
Gandossy et al., 1980~. The reader should
also be aware that our selection of studies
influences the scope of our discussion
and the applicability of our conclusions.
Most of the studies we discuss concern
crime among users of heroin and/or co-
caine. These two drugs, along with aTco-
ho! (which is reviewed separately in this
volume), are the drugs that have been
most frequently studied in relationship to
crime. Although we briefly discuss mari-
juana and phencyclidine (PCP), relatively
few careful studies have been made of
the relationship of these drugs to criminal
behavior. We also discuss the relation-
ship of barbiturate use and amphetamine
use to crime, mainly in the context of
studies that have focused on heroin or
cocaine use.
In focusing our discussion on studies of
heroin and cocaine users, we have
thereby limited the types of crimes and
the types of populations that we report
on. Also, because the use of heroin and
OCR for page 53
THE IMPACT OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE ON CRIMINAL CAREERS
cocaine is rare in the general population
and in persons uncler age 17, most of the
detailed information about the relation-
ship of these drugs to crime comes from
studies of acIfflts who have been proc-
essed by the criminal justice system or
who have entered publicly funded drug
abuse treatment programs. Finally, be-
cause men are more likely to be arrested
than women, most of the finclings refer to
them. This is unfortunate in light of grow-
ing evidence (Wish, Brady, and
Cuadrado, 1984) that drug abuse may be
more prevalent and severe among female
arrestees than mate arrestees.
Much of what we say is largely appli-
cable to the indigent, less eclucatect, adult
mate drug user who has been arrested.
Our discussion is less relevant to the
users of heroin and cocaine who are
well educates! and legitimately employed
(Washton and Gold, 1984; Zinberg,
19841; such persons are less likely to be
found in state or federally funclec] treat-
ment programs, from which many re-
searchers select their samples. Little is
known about the drug use and criminal
behavior of these relatively affluent per-
sons. However, a recent survey of 500
largely employed and educated persons
who called a national hotline for help
with cocaine-related problems (Washton
and GoIc3, 1984) indicates crimes are less
common among these persons than
among less affluent users tv~icalIv stud-
ied. Only 12 percent of the sample of
mostly chronic cocaine users had been
arrested for a cocaine-relatec3 crime, ancI
29 percent inclicatecT stealing from family,
friends, or employers to support their
habits. The fact that existing research
does not permit more extensive discus-
sion of drug use ant] crime among affluent
populations should not hincler us from
achieving our main purposes, however,
since we are particularly concerned here
with how drug use affects the criminal
careers of persons processed by the crim
S3
inal justice system, who are preponcler-
antly not affluent.
Summary of Findings
We summarize here conclusions baser!
on the information presented in this pa-
ner. First, studies of persons who have
been arrested and processed by the crim-
inal justice system, of unapprehended
criminals on the streets, and of persons in
drug treatment programs indicate that as
levels of illicit drug use (especially of
heroin and cocaine) increase so does
criminal activity (both drug-clistribution
offenses and noncirug-related serious of-
fenses). Second, among youths in the
general population, the small subset who
use cocaine, heroin, or pills for nonmedi-
cal reasons account for a disproportionate
amount of all juvenile crime. Third, per-
sons in the United States who use these
drugs enough to have associated legal
problems tend to be so enmeshed in
other deviance and adjustment problems
as to make attempts to untangle the exact
sequence of the onset of drug use and
criminal behavior a futile and, perhaps,
trivial pursuit. Fourth, chronic users of
heroin and/or cocaine who are repeatedly
arrested ant! processes! by the criminal
justice system typically engage in a vari-
ety of clrug-clistribution activities and
other crimes. Fifth, treatment programs
can reduce drug abuse and crime if the
person remains in treatment. Ant! sixth,
urinalysis appears to be an effective toot
for identifying drug-using arrestees, but
more needs to be learned about how to
use this information.
We have also attempter] to review a
number of topics for which insufficient
information was available to draw clefini-
tive conclusions. Little is known, for ex-
ample, about the natural course of drug
use and crime among persons processed
by the criminal justice system. Does in-
carceration reduce or only delay drug use
OCR for page 54
54
and crime? Persons tend to relapse into
c3 rug use and crime after release from
treatment or detention, but c30 they make
up for lost time? Even persons dependent
on heroin have periods in their lives
when they reduce or abstain from the use
of drugs. More needs to be Earned about
what brings these periods on and how
they might be prolongecl.
Drug use appears less prevalent among
arrestees over age 35. Is this because
ctrug-abusing criminals drop out of the
active criminal population because of
early death, incarceration, or institution-
alization, or c30 they turn to alcohol or
mature out of their drug use and criminal
activities? Or do police avoid arresting
oIcler criminals? Or is it that the older
criminals, like the rest of the oIcler popu-
lation, lack opportunities to use illicit
clrugs? And, do these relationships apply
equally to mate and female offenders?
Much money and resources are being
expenclect to reduce the supply of illicit
drugs in the United States by seizing
supplies and asking other governments to
reduce poppy and coca plant production
in their countries. These efforts assume
that by reducing the supply one can re-
duce the abuse of these drugs and the
associated crime. Almost nothing is
known, however, about how these efforts
actually affect the crime rates of drug
abusers. Do the higher prices for illicit
drugs that result from a decrease in sup-
ply lead to less use and therefore less
crime, or floes the user merely increase
his or her criminal activities to pay the
increased prices, or is there no effect
because the user turns to more abundant
([rugs?
More needs to be learned also about
how to reduce demanc! for drugs in of-
fencler populations. Which offenders are
the best cancticiates for intervention?
Should major efforts go toward deterring
the young, drug-using offender at risk of
progressing to more serious drug abuse,
CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS
or toward deterring older persons, who
may be more ready to change their ways?
There is some evidence that court-
ordered treatment may keep persons in
treatment longer and, therefore, away
from drugs and crime longer. More needs
to be learned about how specific types of
court-ordered interventions can reduce
drug abuse and crime.
The remainder of this paper expands
on the points presented above. The paper
is divided into two sections and two ap-
pendices. In the first section, which is
divided into 11 themes, we review the
research and draw pertinent conclusions.
In the second section, we present sug-
gestions for future research on drug abuse
and crime. Appendix A provides a sum-
mary of many of the methodologic prob-
lems involved in the study of drug use
and crime that guided our review of
the research. Appendix B provides criti-
cal reviews of seven studies from which
we have derived many of our conclu-
s~ons.
CONCLUSIONS FROM THE
EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON DRUG
USE AND CRIME
We have reviewed the studies indi-
cated in Appendix B as well as other
research bearing on drug abuse and crime
and developed a set of themes to catego-
rize the current state of knowledge. Each
of these themes is discussed below.
Drug Use and Crime Rates Among
Youths and Adults
After reviewing studies of individual
crime rates conducted in the mid-1970s,
Cohen (1978:229) concluded that,
"clearly the most pressing research re-
quirement for estimating the incapacita-
tive eject is to provide adequate esti-
mates of the individual crime rate (A)."
These estimates, she added, should ac
OCR for page 55
THE IMPACT OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE ON CRIMINAL CAREERS
count for variations in A by crime type,
across the criminal population, and (lur-
ing an individual career. This section pro-
vicles information that shows how an of-
fencler's use of hard drugs influences his
or her crime rate. Two primary points are
stressed:
1. Among youthful and aclult offenc3-
ers, those who use hard drugs, especially
if they are daily users, have higher crime
rates than those who do not.
2. Studies of these active drug-using
offenders that have measured self-report-
ec! criminal behavior have produced esti-
mates of crime rates that far exceed esti-
mates based on arrest or conviction
records.
Stucties of Youths
Information on the crime rates of cirug-
using youths comes primarily from stud-
ies basecI on data from Elliott and
Huizinga's (1984) National Youth Survey
(NYS). In assessing the value of such
studies one must remember that serious
criminal offenses are rare in the general
population of youths and that analyses of
the most deviant youths are necessarily
based on a small number of subjects.
Nevertheless, analyses of different types
of offenders (e.g., those who limit them-
seIves to minor offenses versus those who
commit serious crimes) consistently show
that use of serious "hard" drugs (primar-
iTy cocaine or heroin) is associates] with
higher rates of offending.
Johnson, Wish, and Huizinga (1983)
used NYS data to assess how rates of
juvenile crime change according to the
level of drug use and offender type (see
also Elliott and Huizinga, 19841. Johnson
and colleagues grouped youths into five
classes of c3 rug use arranged hierarchi-
cally (virtually all users of more serious
drugs had used the less serious drugs) in
terms of the seriousness of drugs used
nonexperimentally in the previous year:
55
(1) no drug or alcohol use (N
alcohol only used alcohol on four or
more occasions (N = 5581; (3) mari-
juana usecl on four or more occasions (N
= 3011; (4) pills used on three or more
occasions (N = 991; (5) cocaine-used on
three or more occasions (N = 71, 12 of
whom were heroin users). Mean annual
crime rates were then caTculatecl for index
offenses (rape, robbery, aggravated as-
sault, burglary, larceny, and motor vehi-
cle theft; homicide was excluded), minor
offenses (thefts, assaults, vandalism), and
drug sales. These finclings appear in Ta-
ble 1.
It is clear from Table 1 that the level of
juvenile crime closely parallels the level
of (lrug use. Both nonusers of drugs and
alcohol and users of alcohol reported an
average of only two or three crimes, most
of them minor offenses, in the previous
year. Youths who used marijuana had
overall rates of crime that were three
times higher than the rates for non-drug
users or alcohol users. Youths who used
pills but not cocaine, in turn, had higher
crime rates than the users of marijuana or
alcohol, particularly for index offenses
and drug sales.
The highest crime rates were found for
the youths who reported the use of co-
caine. Their rates of index and minor
offenses were two to three times those of
the pits users, and they had a very high
annual rate (48) of drug sales. Separating
the youths into offender groups based on
the seriousness and number of crimes
committed showed that even within
these relatively homogeneous groups,
youths who used pills or cocaine had the
highest crime rates. In fact, one-fourth of
the cocaine users had committed three or
more index offenses in the previous year.
Youths who used cocaine and committed
multiple index offenses constituted only
1.3 percent of all youths but accounted for
40 percent of the index crimes reported
by the entire sample.
= 510~; (2)
OCR for page 56
56
CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS
TABLE 1 Mean Annual Rates of Inclex Offenses, Minor Crimes, and Drug Sales
in a National Sample of Youths by Level of Drug Use in the Prior Year
(number of cases)
Mean Annual Rate
Index offenses
Minor offenses
Drug sales
All offenses
Youths Who in the Prior Year Used
No Drugs/Alcohol Alcohol Marijuana
(510) (558) (301)
b
3
b
3
_b
2
b
6
1
8
Pills Cocainea/Heroin
(99) (71)
3
12
9
24
9
21
48
78
Total
(1,539)
9
NOTE: Some minor offenses (e.g., running away from home and skipping classes) have been excluded.
aIncludes 12 who reported using heroin.
bless than one crime per year.
SOURCE: Johnson, Wish, and Huizinga (1983~.
Conclusion. These findings from a
study of a national sample of youths offer
strong support for the hypothesis that se-
rious drug use (especially of cocaine) and
criminal offenses tend to be found among
the same youths. These finclings are also
consistent with other widely accepted
studies showing that illicit drug use by
youths tends to be accompanied by a
variety of deviant attitudes and behaviors
(lessor ant! lessor, 1977; Robins and
Wish, 1977; Kandel, 19781.
Studies of Adults
A study of incarcerated persons in three
states (Chaiken and Chaiken, 1982) fount!
that violent predators, i.e., persons who
reported committing robbery, assault, and
drug dealing and who had very high
crime rates, had extensive histories of
drug use. Violent predators were more
likely than others in the sample to have
used hard drugs (including heroin) fre-
quently as a juvenile and to have used
drugs daily and in large amounts cluring
the period studied (up to 2 years prior to
the current incarceration). It is not clear
from the data presented, however,
whether cirug use is a major factor in
differentiating crime rates among of-
fender groups. "Robber-clealers," who
committed robbery and drug dealing but
not assaults, had Tower crime rates than
the violent predators but similar drug-use
histories (so far as one can tell, given that
only significance levels are reported and
not actual percentages) (Chaiken and
Chaiken, 1982:Table 3.11. The robber-
dealers had higher rates of participation
for 15 of 19 juvenile and aclult drug-use
measures. Compared with other inmates,
both violent predators and robber-cleaTers
had higher rates of juvenile heroin acIdic-
tion, use of other hare! drugs as a juvenile,
claily heroin use costing more than $50,
daily barbiturate and amphetamine use
(10 or more pills), ant! combined alcohol
and amphetamine use. In the absence of
more-cletaile(1 information, we have to
conclude that the two groups, on the
whole, hac! similar drug abuse histories
and that the commission of assaults, not
use of drugs, (differentiates the two groups.
Furler information on this issue is
provider] by a study (Chaiken, 1983) in
which crime rates were computer! for
these same sample members according to
their offender group and level of illicit
pill or heroin use during the study period.
Table 2 presents the minimum estimates
of crime rates for selected nondrug
crimes, computed by truncating each per-
son's annual rate for any offense type at
OCR for page 57
THE IMPACT OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE ON CRIMINAL CAREERS
365 (one per day). The findings of this
study indicate that for each offender
group high-cost heroin users had the
highest crime rates. There was no mono-
tonic relationship between drug use and
rates of those crimes for other levels of
drug use, but this may be because two
important drug types (cocaine and mari-
juana) were not measured. Even the vio-
lent predators who did not report drug
use had relatively high (156) crime rates,
however. The findings indicate that ha-
bitual use of heroin does tend to be ac-
companied by high rates of nondrug
crime, regardless of one's overall level or
type of offending. On the other hand, the
fact that violent predators who did not use
drugs had high crime rates, even com-
pared with some groups who were heavy
daily heroin users, shows that serious
heroin involvement is neither a necessary
nor sufficient condition for high crime
rates for nondrug crimes. (It should be
noted, however, that the data presented
in Table 2 omit the high rates of drug-
dealing offenses among drug users. An-
nual rates of drug dealing were generally
greater than 1,000 among the high-cost
heroin users, and in the 200 to 800 range
for the other groups).
Additional evidence for the link be
57
tween hard-drug use and crime rates is
found in a recent study of 201 opiate users
in Harlem (Johnson et al., 1985~. This
study found that crime rates increased
with the frequency of self-reported her-
oin use. Daily heroin users (persons who
used heroin 6 or 7 days a week) averaged
1,400 crimes per year; persons who used
heroin less than 3 days a week averaged
about 500 crimes per year. Although this
finding could be affected by respondent-
measurement problems, the subjects
were interviewed daily for 5 days and
then weekly so the recall period was
short. If robbery, burglary, shoplifting,
and other larcenies are taken as the index
crimes, daily heroin users in this study
committed 137 such crimes per year, and
less regular heroin users committed 47
per year. Other crimes, e.g., forgery, pros-
tit~tion, pimping, con games, and miscel-
laneous nondrug crimes, were not related
to level of heroin use among this group of
users. The annual rates for drug-distri-
bution crimes were much higher than for
nondrug crimes, ranging from 245 (for
irregular heroin users) to almost 900
(among daily heroin users).
This study (Johnson et al., 1985) also
used the offender typology developed by
Chaiken and Chaiken (1982) and found
TABLE 2 Annual Crime Rates for Robbery, Assault, Burglary, Theft, and Forgery-
Fraud by Drug Use During the Measurement Perioc!
Drugs Used
No Pills Pills butLow-Cost Heroin Use
Variety of Offender or Heroina No HeroinHeroin Use Over $50/Day
Violent predator (N) 156 (50) 254 (76)134 (62) 326 (88)
Robber-dealer 33 (32) 112 (51)156 (38) 194 (66)
Low-level robber 27 (158) 19 (24)24 (26) 110 (23)
Burglar-dealer 63 (62) 76 (50)127 (28) 184 (38)
Low-level burglar 17 (89) 11 (23)5 (14) 78 (11)
Property-drug offender 67 (52) 6 (21)104 (31) 204 (29)
NOTE: Measurement period was up to 2 years prior to current incarceration.
aStudy did not ask about cocaine or marijuana use during this period. Some of these persons could have
used these drugs.
SOURCE: Chaiken (1983).
OCR for page 58
58
that crime rates were generally high, con-
trolling for offender type, for daily heroin
users. These analyses, one should note,
clid not control for age or other factors that
could have affected the crime rates in
each group. Table 3 presents the mean
annual offense rates, their standard devi-
ations, and the skewness for four offenses,
for the 22 robber-dealers in the sample.
(Robber-dealers were persons who com-
mitted both robbery and drug dealing on
2 percent or more of their days on the
street.) The offense-specific crime rates in
Table 3 vary considerably. Burglary is a
good example because the group was not
defined on the basis of burglary rates.
Although these 22 robber-dealers, as a
whole, had an annual crime rate for bur-
glary of 35.8, 6 of them committee! no
burglaries, and another 4 committed
more than 75. Thus, in computing and
analyzing annual crime rates, one must
pay special attention to the large variabil-
ity that can be fount! even in a somewhat
homogeneous group of drug-using of-
fenders.
Some of the variability in incliviclual
offense rates may be explainer! by the
finding that persons may have alternating
periods of heavy and lesser drug use. One
study reported high criminality during
runs of narcotics use; when narcotics use
declined so did crime rates (McGIothlin,
Anglin, and Wilson, 1977~. Another study
reported that addicts were six times more
criminally active during periods of heavy
narcotics use than cluring periods of
CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS
lesser use (Ball et al., 19811. Both of these
studies offer further evidence of a link
between heavy narcotics use and higher
crime rates.
A study of acldicts known to the police
in Baltimore (Ball et al., 1981; Ball, Shaf-
fer, and Nurco, 1983) has received consid-
erable public attention because of find-
in~s that show the magnitude of the
increases in crime rates on days that per-
sons used narcotics heavily, compared
win days of less frequent use. The fincl-
ings ofthis study are consistent with stud-
ies reviewed above that document an
increase in crime win increased narcot-
ics use. However, because of problems of
ambiguity in Me interview questions Mat
measured the frequency of criminal activ-
ity (noted in Appendix B), the exact esti-
mates ofthe increase in criminal behavior
should not be used as the basis for policy
decisions until this study has been repli-
cated in other sites.
Another study (Wish, Klumpp, et al.,
1980; Wish, 1982) analyzecl a 6-year re-
cidivism file for 7,087 persons arrested in
Me District of Columbia. Arrestees de-
tectecl by urinalysis to be drug users (pri-
marily morphine or phenme~azine) at
any arrest cluring the period had an aver-
age of 4.9 arrests during the 6 years,
compared win an average of 2.7 arrests
for persons not ~letected to be drug users.
This result coup! have been observed
because persons with multiple arrests
probably had more urine tests during the
period ant! thus a greater opportunity to
TABLE 3 Mean Annual Crime Rates Among 22 Robber-Dealers
Mean Annual Standard
Offense Crime Rate Deviation Skewness Range
Robbery 31.3 34.9 2.6 8-155
Burglary 35.8 50.4 2.3 0-212
Shoplifting 48.1 51.1 .9 0-144
Other larcenies 30.2 35.3 1.2 0-122
SOURCE: Johnson et al. (1985).
OCR for page 59
THE IMPACT OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE ON CRIMINAL CAREERS
have a positive specimen and to be cIas-
sified as a drug user. The researchers
continuer] to fins! an association between
the number of arrests and being a chug
user, however, when they controller] for
the number of urine test results available
for each person. In a related analysis,
persons found at an initial arrest to have a
positive urine test had rates of multiple
rearrest in a 4-year follow-up period that
were significantly higher than those found
for nonusers, after controlling for age and
prior record (Forst and Wish, 19831.
Similar findings were also reported in a
study of male arrestees in Manhattan
(Wish, Bracly, and Cuadrarlo, 19851. Ar-
restees with a urine specimen that was
positive in tests for any of four drugs
(opiates, cocaine, PCP, or methadone; N
= 2,647) at the index arrest had an aver-
age of 3.5 arrests in a 3-year period, most
of which occurred after the index arrest,
compared with an average of 1.9 arrests
for persons with drug-negative urine at
the index arrest (N = 2,089~. This higher
number of arrests was found among drug-
positive arrestees of all ages. In addition,
the number of arrests was related to the
number of drugs found in a specimen.
Arrestees with two or more drugs in their
urine (N = 1,081) had an average of 4.6
arrests, compared with an average of 2.8
arrests Or persons with one drug (N =
1,5661. Thus, arrestees who had recently
used multiple hard drugs (usually co-
caine and heroin) had the highest number
of arrests. Other studies of drug users
(doss, 1976; Inciardi, 1979, 1984; Clayton
anclVoss,1981; Collins ancIAllison, 1983;
Johnson et al., 1985) and of the associa-
tion between the price of heroin ant]
levels of property crimes in the commu-
nit,v (Silverman and Spruill, 1977) pro-
vide evidence for a link between heroin
and cocaine use and criminal activity.
Conclusion. Studies that vary dramat-
ically in the locales and populations sam
59
plecI, in the measures of crime and drug
use, and in the cutting points and cIassi-
fications of offenders and drug users have
consistently found a strong association
between the level of cocaine or heroin
use and criminal behavior. Among the
general population of youths and among
adult offenders, users of these drugs have
high rates of c3rug-distribution crimes and
serious nondrug crimes, especially those
that generate income. Daily users ofthese
drugs tenet to have the highest crime
rates.
Demonstrating a link between serious
drug use and crime is much easier than
estimating the actual amount of crime
committee] by drug abusers, however.
Large estimates of the amount of crime
attributable to heroin users have been
challengecl by some as impossible and
"mythical" (Singer, 1971; Renter, 19841.
Diversity of Crimes Among Drug
Users
As in(licatecT above, recent research has
demonstrated that some offenders who
use hard drugs, like the violent predators,
may have rates of violent crimes against
persons that equal or exceed those found
among offenders not using drugs. The
analysis of the rates of arrest over a 6-year
period for a sample of 7,087 arrestees
(Wish, 1982), noted above, found that per-
sons with a positive urinalysis test (at the
time of at least one of their arrests) had
rates of arrest for bait violations, larceny,
robbery, burglary, and drug offenses that
were two to three times higher than the
rates for persons not detected to be using
hard drugs. Drug users' rates of arrest for
all other crimes were similar to those
found for the nonusers.
Analyses of consecutive arrests among
drug users and nonusers from the same
study showed a tendency for drug users
to be rearrested for property crimes. A
sample of all persons who had an arrest in
OCR for page 60
60
an 8-month panel period were selected
for this analysis and all of their rearrests
in the following 4 years were tracked.
Each of 2,442 arrestees was classified as
being drug positive (D + ~ by urinalysis at
the initial arrest or drug negative (Do.
The index arrest and the next arrest were
classified according to six types of of-
fenses: violent, robbery, property, victim-
less, drug, and other. The results showed
that for D- arrestees the next arrest was
most likely to be for the same type of
crime as the index arrest. Drug-negative
arrestees initially charger] with a drug
offense were an exception and were more
likely to be rearrested for a property
crime. All D + arrestees, however, were
more likely to be charged with a property
crime at rearrest than any other crime
type, regardless of what the charge was at
the initial arrest (Wish, Klumpp, et al.,
1980:VII-22~.
Ethnographic research of indigent drug
users in New York shows that the ordi-
nary, high-rate offender may switch from
one crime type to another from one clay to
the next ant! even on the same clay. For
example, a person may commit a theft one
clay, a burglary the next clay, several drug
sales the next clay, ant! no crimes the next
day (Johnson et al., 19851. Other studies
of active street hustlers in Harlem have
also suggested such a diverse pattern of
offending (Strug, Stevie, et al., 1984;
Strug, Wish, et al., 1984~.
Although ethnographic studies of
nonrandom samples of offenders provide
findings with unknown representative-
ness of other offenders, such studies do
yield valuable insights into the link be-
tween drug use and crime. For example,
one of the reasons behind the variety and
number of crimes that drug users report
may be the rather modest amounts of
money they earn from their crimes.
Johnson et al. (1985) report that the aver-
age nondrug crime committed by the re-
spondents they studied netted the of
CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS
fender only $35 in cash; even the most
lucrative nondrug crimes (burglary and
robbery) netted an average of only about
$80. Estimates of the annual criminal in-
come from both drug and nondrug crimes
ranged from $6,000 to $18,000.
Conclusion
Offenders with expensive drug habits
clearly commit high rates of income-
generating crimes, such as larceny, bur-
glary, and robbery, in addition to high
rates of drug-clistribution crimes. Evi-
dence from ethnographic studies of indi-
gent street users in New York indicates
that these persons earn small amounts of
money anti, thus, commit numerous
crimes to finance their drug use.
Drug Use and Violent Crimes
If one considers robbery to be a violent
crime, there is little doubt that drug users
commit many violent crimes. However,
there has been some controversy in the
literature regarding whether drug users
commit crimes specifically designed to
harm persons (Wish, 1982~. Studies of the
arrest charges for heroin-using versus
nonusing arrestees have uniformly found
that the heroin-using arrestees had higher
proportions of arrests for property crime
and Tower proportions of arrests for vio-
lent crimes against persons (Kozel and
DuPont, 19771. Similarly, inmates with a
history of narcotic addiction were only
one-thircl as likely to be serving a sen-
tence for violent crime as were nonusers
(Barton, 1976~.
In reviewing this topic, McGIothTin
(1979:361) cautioned against jumping to
the conclusion that such results necessar-
iTy mean that heroin users do not commit
violent crimes:
These findings have been loosely interpreted
to conclude that narcotic addicts are less likely
to commit crimes against persons than are
OCR for page 61
THE IMPACT OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE ON CRIMINAL CAREERS
nonaddict criminals. Actually, the data do not
warrant conclusions about the absolute fre-
quency of crimes by He two groups. Addicts
exhibit an especially high recidivism rate, and
Be possibility that they commit many more
property crimes, and some more violent
crimes, than nonaddict criminals is not incon-
sistent win the above results.
In recent years the wisdom of this ob-
servation has become clear. Analyses of a
recidivism file for 7,087 arresters in the
District of Columbia indicated that the
percentage of arrest charges for violent
crimes against persons for drug users
(positive urine test) was lower than that
for nonusers (Wish, 19821. However, the
rates of arrest for violent crimes for drug-
using ant] nonusing arrestees were equiv-
aTent for assaults, sexual assault, and ho-
micide. Rates of arrest among drug users
for weapons offenses were higher than
those for nonusers. And a study of incar-
ceratec! persons (Chaiken and Chaiken,
1982; Chaiken, 1983) found that many of
the violent preclators, the group cleaned
by drug cleating, assault, and robbery,
were heroin users, many of whom had
expensive habits.
Drug-using offenders, especially those
involved in drug-clistribution activities,
may be especially prone to commit
crimes against persons. Several jurisclic-
tions have recently issued statistics that
indicate that between 20 and 30 percent
of their homicide cases appear to be
"drug related," that is, the victims or
perpetrators were either drug users or
dealers (Goldstein, 1985; Heffernan, Mar-
tin, and Romano, 1982; McBride, 19831.
And toxicologic studies of homicide vic-
tims in New York have shown a high
prevalence of alcohol and drug use by the
clecedents (Haberman and Baclen, 19781.
A rationale for the prevalence of vio-
lence among drug abusers has been sug-
gestecT in terms of a "systemic moclel"
(Goldstein, 1985~. This model holds that
the drug-clistribution system relies main
61
Ty on violence and its threat to maintain
"orcler" and to control the sale of these
valued, but illegal, substances. A variety
of expectations of violence have been
developer! by higher level dealers to
keep Tower level distributors "in line."
And lower level users-dealers see drug
distributors as prime candidates to "rip
off,' (rob or burglarize). Distributors who
have been victimized rarely report such
crimes to the police; they settle the mat-
ter themselves.
Conclusion
Users of heroin have, in the past, been
considered to be unlikely to commit vio-
lent crimes against persons. Recent stud-
ies suggest that hard-drug users commit
violent crimes at least as often as nonus-
ing offenders. The pervasive violence in
the drug-distribution system may even
increase the likelihood of drug users' be-
coming perpetrators or victims of violent
crimes. More research is needed to clarify
the hypothesized link between violent
crimes and drug-distribution activities.
Drug-Distr~bution Activities ant! the
Measurement of Crime Rates
There are a number of reasons for sepa-
rating drug-related crimes (e.g., possession
or sale) from the computation of rates of
crime. Drug users, by definition, commit-
ted drug-related crimes. However, drug-
distribution activities are so much a part
of the daily lives of drug-involved of-
fenders that to ignore these activities is to
underestimate their crime rates seriously.
Virtually all studies of high-risk popu-
lations have found that the rates of drug
selling exceed those of any other offense
type, especially for users of cocaine or
heroin. Chaiken and Chaiken (1982)
found that their subjects reported be-
tween 90 and 160 drug sales per year.
Even among persons who were not daily
OCR for page 62
62
heroin users, the number of drug sales
(about 100) exceeded the number of
thefts by a factor of two to five. Drug users
in Miami reported two to three drug sales
for every theft that they committed
(Inciardi, 19791. And others have fount!
that approximately 10 percent of Ameri-
can youths sell drugs in any given year,
and a few do so more than 50 times per
year (Single and Kanclel, 1978; Clayton
and Voss, 1981; Johnston, Bachman, ant!
O'Malley, 1982; Elliott et al., 1983~. Daily
heroin users in East Harlem reported
committing an average of 1,000 cirug-
ctistribution crimes per person per year
(Johnson et al., 1985~.
Conclusion
Drug-ctistribution activities must be
taken into consideration when measuring
the rates of crime among drug users.
These crimes are among the most com-
mon committed by drug users, and poli-
cies of selective incapacitation or treat-
ment of drug users may have their
greatest impact on these crimes.
Onset of Drug Use and Crime:
Does It Matter Which Occurred First?
The onset of drug use ant! crime has
been given considerable attention in the
research literature. There is often an im-
plicit assumption that knowing when in
the life cycle ant! in what order the two
types of behavior first occur may help to
resolve two issues: (1) how to intervene
in and prevent these behaviors and (2)
whether the onset of drug use changes a
person's level (or type) of criminal behav-
ior.
Persons who begin to use drugs or
alcohol at an early age have a greater
likelihood of having problems with sub-
stance abuse and alcoholism as adults.
The evidence is less definitive on the
issue of whether drug use precedes or
follows onset of criminal behavior, and it
CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS
appears that this relationship may depend
on the availability of the drug and the con-
ventional age at which its use is initiated.
The typical addict studied before 1950
lic! not have a prior criminal background
(Greenberg anct Adler, 19741. These per-
sons, predominantly rural, white south-
erners, became actdicted in their middle
twenties, usually as a result of using pre-
scribed drugs. Around 1950 a shift oc-
currec3 in the type of persons who became
heroin aclclicts. Adclicts were now urban
blacks and Spanish-speaking males who
voluntarily used heroin and who had a
history of criminality prior to the begin-
ning of adcliction in their teenage years
(DuPont artcl Kozel, 19761. The weight of
the evidence seems to support the con-
clusion that currently most (not all) users
of heroin and other hard drugs who even-
tually come to treatment programs or who
are apprehencled by the police have cle-
viant or criminal backgrounds that pre-
cecled their addiction. Heavy use of her-
oin and injection of heroin and cocaine
tend to begin in the late teens or the early
twenties (Inciardi, 1981; Clayton ant]
Voss, 19811. Once aclclicted, these per-
sons become more involves] in drug-dis-
tribution activities and other income-gen-
erating crimes (McGIothTin, 19791.
Heroin use and, to a lesser degree,
cocaine use have a bad reputation in
American society, and there is consicler-
able self-selection involved in the use of
these drugs. Persons who are deviant in
childhoocl are more likely to use these
drugs, and consequently, it is cliff?icult to
cietermine how many crimes committee!
by users are the result of an underlying
disposition toward deviance and criminal
behavior. This is a major problem in as-
sessing the causal role of drug use in crim-
inal behavior. After considering these is-
sues, Robins (1979:328) concluclecl,
Thus, while it is true that the kinds of people
who use heroin are also likely to commit
crimes, and that committing crimes makes
OCR for page 78
78
CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS
Although researchers may find it help
. ~ ~ ~Polyclrug Use Among Heavy
fuT to test the vanity of seli-reports ot Drug Users
recent drug use through urinalysis, they
still face many problems in vali(lating
self-reports of drug use. For example,
urine tests do not tell us when in the
test-sensitive period (approximately 24 to
48 hours for cocaine and heroin) the drug
use occurred. One cannot use urine tests
to validate reports of drug use several
days prior to the collection of the urine
specimen. Researchers typically settle for
an indication of the veracity of the re
sponclent's answers to questions about
drug use from the vaTiclation of recent
drug use (by urinalysis) and from consis
tency checks within the interview ant!
between the interview and recorc] infor
mation obtained for the respondent.
Episodic Nature of Hard-Drug Use
It is commonly believed that the heavy
user of hard drugs, especially of heroin,
uses the drug every day. It has become
increasingly clear, however, that heroin
users go in and out of periods of use even
w i t h o u t t r e a t m e n t i n t e r v e n t i o n ~ M c G ~ o t h
lin, Anglin, and Wilson, 1977; Robins,
1979; Ball et al., 1981; Ball, Shaffer, and
Nurco, 1983; Johnson et al., 19851. Stud
ies of active, unapprehenclecl heroin
using offenders in New York City (Iohn
son, 1984; Johnson et al., 1985) tend to
find much polydrug use and drug switch
ing, depending on drug availability and
the person's finances and preferences at
the time of purchase.
The implications of the episodic nature
of drug use for studies of drug use and
crime are significant. One must not label a
person a drug user over an entire period
because the person reports being an acIdict
or heavy user at one time during that pe
riod. Measurement of drug use on a daily or
weekly basis is needed to relate runs of
drug use to changes in criminal behavior
(see McGIothlin, Anglin, ant! Wilson, 1977;
Nurco, Cisin, anct Balter, 1981a-c).
Ample evidence exists that the heavier
the use of any one ([rug, the greater the
likelihood of use of other drugs. One
study (Robins, HeIzer, et al., 1980) found
that, as the use of alcohol or heroin in-
creased in a sample of veterans, so cTi(1 the
number of other drugs used in the same
2-year period. This study reporter] that
persons addicted to heroin used an aver-
age of 10.4 other drugs (out of 20) in a
2-year period after returning to the
United States from Vietnam, comparer!
with 7.9 drugs for less regular heroin
users. In fact, the authors suggested that
knowing how many illicit drugs were
used by a person may be as good an
indicator of severity of use as knowing
which drugs are used. Studies of popula-
tions of heroin-using offenders have
tended to confirm this high degree of
polycirug use (Strug, Stevie, et al., 1984;
Strug, Wish, et al., 1984~. Both self-reports
and urinalysis have inclicated that heavy
users of any illicit drug use a smorgasbord
of drugs, including alcohol, PCP, cocaine,
heroin, pills, and illicit methadone fre-
quently on the same clay.
The fact that heavy users of heroin anti,
incleed, of any illicit psychoactive drug
tend to use multiple drugs presents some
clifficulties for the researcher studying the
relationship between (lrug use and crime.
It may be misleading to attribute the
criminal behavior of a heroin user to the
heroin when that person is probably us-
ing a multitucle of ([rugs and alcohol.
Studies of drug use and crime must there-
fore obtain precise information about all
substances being used and control for
their clifferential impacts on crime. A
good example of this approach appears in
the study of veterans cites] above (Robins,
HeIzer, et al., 1980~. That study compared
the effects of regular use of heroin, am-
phetamines, marijuana, and barbiturates
on social acldustment, after controlling for
OCR for page 79
THE IMPACT OF S UB STANCE AB USE ON CRIMINAL CAREERS
early predisposing factors as well as other
c3 rug use. The authors concluded that the
greater social disability found among us-
ers of heroin than users of other drugs was
probably attributable to the types of per-
sons who use heroin in our society
persons with the greatest predisposition
(apparent in their youths) to social prob-
lems. Both the use of other drugs and
one's disposition toward deviant behav-
iors must be taken into consideration
when ascertaining the impact of a partic-
ular drug on one's social adjustment or
criminal behavior.
Measuring Drug Use and Crime
We inclicatec3 above that persons may
tend to underreport their use of illicit
drugs and that urine tests can help to
detect instances of recent drug use. When
one measures both drug use and criminal
behaviors by self-reports, however, there
is another potential problem. Let us as-
sume that person X is a seasoner! drug-
abusing offender (perhaps in his late
twenties) who is relatively open about his
involvement in illicit behaviors. Such a
person might report considerable drug
use ant] crime in a research interview. On
the other hand, person Y may be younger
and as criminally active as person X, but
less willing to admit to deviant behaviors.
For example, some evidence exists that
youthful offenders in Harlem were less
likely to admit that they were junkies
than were older offenders (Anderson et
al., 1984~.
Assuming that a sample contains many
persons like X and Y. we could find a
strong relationship between rates of drug
use and crime that would be artifactual,
resulting only from the fact that persons
willing to disclose one of these behaviors
are likely to disclose the others. A similar
problem could occur if a respondent
tended to view a particular time period to
be one of general activity. In such cases
he might report a high level of both drug
79
use and crime as a result of this general-
ized belief about his life at that time.
These biases or distortions in self-
reported behaviors could be expected to
increase as the time period being recalled
gets further away from the time of inter-
view (Bachman and O'Malley, 19814. On
the other hand, in our research we have
found some indication of underreporting
among persons asked to report their drug
use in the prior 24 to 48 hours during a
research interview held in potentially
threatening criminal justice settings. Re-
searchers shouIc3, therefore, attempt to
test drug and crime associations based on
self-reports by comparing them against
other information that does not depend
solely on self-reports. An example of this
strategy is the evaluation of the California
Civil Addict Program by McGIothTin,
Anglin, and Wilson (1977), in which an
association between self-reported reduc-
tions in narcotics use and self-reported
reductions in crime was verified by a
reduction in recorded arrests cluring the
same period.
APPENDIX B
Studies of Drug Abuse an(1 Crime
In this appendix we review studies
whose findings greatly influenced our
discussion in the body of this paper. We
provide a brief summary of the design,
major findings, significance, and potential
limitations of each stu(ly.
Evaluation of the CaZfornia Civil
Addict Program (:McGIothtin, Anglin,
and Wilson, 1977J
Sample: Studied 949 men committed
to the CaTifomia Civil A(l(lict Program.
Included admissions from 1962~1963,
1964, and 1970. Many sample members
entered this program as an alternative to
serving time for a crime.
Primary Measures: Self-reports clur
OCR for page 80
80
ing personal interviews, official arrest rec-
orcts, and urine specimens.
Validity Checks: For criminal behav-
ior, arrest records; for recent drug use,
urinalysis.
Study Design: Follow-up study; nat-
ural experiment using a comparison
group of persons who were released from
program early because of a legal techni-
cality; oversampled a group of treat-
ment successes as another comparison
group.
Significance of Study: This study is
known for its excellent design and execu-
tion. Both drug use and crime in specific
time periods were measured, and runs of
narcotics use were identified. The study
indicated that the Civil Afflict Program,
which consists of inpatient and outpatient
periods, was effective while the men
were in the program and less effective
after termination. Supervision coupled
with drug testing (originally with naline
and later with urine tests) producer! mod-
erate reductions in narcotics use and
nondrug crime while the men were in the
program. Methadone appeared to have a
similar beneficial impact. The study con-
cludec3 that reductions in daily runs of
narcotics use couIc3 produce significant
reductions in criminal behavior.
Potential Limitations: Sampled only
mates, largely those convicted of crimes.
Applies to persons living in California;
impact of methadone use by respondents
not totally controlled for in the post-1970
analyses.
Analysis of Drugs and Crime Among
Arrestees in the District of Columbia
(Wish, KZampp, et al., 1980J
Sample: Consists of 57,944 men ant]
women arrested and acljuclicatecl in the
Washington, D.C., Superior Court from
1973 to 1977 and a recidivism file contain-
ing 19,277 arrest cases (over a 6-year pe-
riocI) for a sample of 7,087 consecutive per
CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS
sons arrester! in an 8-month panel period in
197~1975.
Primary Measures: Prosecutors' case-
processing records (from PROMIS), bait
and sentencing information from court
records, urinalysis results, ant! drug
abuse treatment records.
Validity Checks: For criminal records,
none; for urine test results, some compari-
son with police officer's perception of ar-
restee's involvement with narcotics.
Study Design: Cross-section case
files of prosecutor's case information and
results of a urine test from a specimen
taken at arrest were merged for each in-
dividual and analyzed; in addition, a per-
son-based file containing arrest cases, uri-
nalysis results, and information on drug
treatment for 7,087 persons was con-
structed and analyzed.
Significance of Study: This study
showed that urine test results could iden-
tify arrestees at high risk of rearrest in a
4-year follow-up period. Drug-using ar-
restees in a 6-year period prior to and
after the index arrest had higher rates of
bait violations and income-generating
crimes than nonusers and equivalent
rates of arrests for violent crimes. Female
arrestees were more likely to be detected
to be using drugs at arrest than male
arresters. The report also contains infor-
mation about the type of victims chosen
by drug users and their types of arrest.
Potential Limitations: Study looked
only at arrest records and obtained no
self-reports of crimes committed. Time at
risk was not controlled for, although sub-
sequent analyses indicated that adjust-
ment for time at risk did not alter study
findings. Drug use was measured only by
. .
urlna ySlS.
Varieties of Criminal Behavior
(Chaiken and Chaiken, 1982)
Sample: Study of 2,190 inmates in
prison or jail in Michigan, California, and
OCR for page 81
THE IMPACT OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE ON CRIMINAL CAREERS
Texas. Sample was selected to represent
an incoming cohort in the institutions.
Analyses were weighted, where neces-
sary.
Primary Measures: Group-adminis-
tered questionnaires nonconfidential-
to enable linking of information with of-
ficial records.
Validity Checks: Performed exten-
sive internal and external validity checks.
Official records were available only for
respondents in prison, however. External
validity tests of self-reports versus record
information inclicatec3 that 23 percent had
"bad ciata" on 31 percent or more of 14
indicators checked. Internal consistency
checks showed that between 28 and 32
percent of the respondents had trouble
understanding the clefinition of the 2-year
period preceding the primary measure-
ment period. Approximately 17 percent of
the sample hac3 bacl data on 21 percent or
more of the 27 indicators of internal qual-
ity that were checked. No systematic re-
lationships were fount] between the
global indices of internal and external
validity and personal characteristics or
reported crime rates in the measurement
period. Official records on drug involve-
ment were so poor that checks of the
self-reportec3 information on substance
abuse were impossible.
Study Design: One-time, retrospec-
tive, self-administerec3 survey question-
naire and available official records were
used.
Significance of Study:
Study is pri-
mariTy known for the clevelopment of a
typology of offenders having different
levels of offending rates and for measur-
ing individual offending frequencies (As)
from inmates' self-reports. Self-report in-
formation, but not official records, was
useful in discriminating high- and Tow-
rate offenders.
Potential Limitations: Used identifi-
able group-ac3ministered questionnaires,
rather than personal interviews. Re
81
spouse rates were 50 percent in CaTifor-
nia and Michigan prisons, 66 percent in
California and Michigan jails, and 82 per-
cent in Texas prisons. Measures of drug
use were few and simple: did not mea-
sure use of marijuana, PCP, or LSD after
age 18; did not measure cocaine use at all.
Method of drug administration was not
measured. Alcohol use was measured by
only a single, yes-no question regarding
whether the person drank alcohol
heavily, got drunk often, or had a drinking
problem. The findings may apply to a
select population of offenders, given the
Tow probability of incarceration. Respon-
clents' clifficulty in differentiating prior
time periods places analyses over these
periods in doubt. Statistical significance
levels were often reporte(1 rather than the
actual finclings, which limits the reader's
ability to assess the magnitude of the
differences reportecl.
Criminality Among Heroin Addicts in
Baltimore (:Ball et al., 1981; Nurco,
Cisin, and Balter, 1981 a,b,c; Ball,
Shaffer, and Nurco, 1983)
Sample: A random sample of 243
mate opiate addicts arrested or identified
by the Baltimore police department be-
tween 1952 and 1971. Sample was strati-
fiec3 by race and time periocl.
Primary Measures: Personal follow-
up interviews an(1 police, juvenile, and
FBI records.
Validity Checks: Interview informa-
tion was checke(1 against recor(1 informa-
tion on (late of birth, narcotics use, incar-
ceration an(1 conviction history, and
juvenile clelinquency history.
Stucly Design: Follow-up interviews
with sample in 1973 and 1974.
Significance of Study: Known for its
typology of heroin addicts and for its
fin(lings regarding the number of crime
days during periods of heavy narcotics
use and lesser use.
OCR for page 82
82
Potential Limitations: Early papers
presented findings for blacks and whites
separately, since the sample hac3 been
stratified by race to produce nearly equal
proportions of whites and blacks. (On
original list 77 percent were blacks; in the
final sample 57 percent were blacks.)
However, research on crime days by Ball
et al. (1981) anc3 Ball, Shaffer, anc3 Nurco
(1983) pooled blacks ant] whites without
weighting the sample back to its original
ethnic composition. Given the many dif-
ferences found between black and white
respondents (Nurco, Cisin, and Balter,
1982), the pooling of all subjects limits
the generaTizability of results. Because
whites were less criminally active than
blacks, the disproportionate number of
whites in the sample wouIcl tend to lower
the estimates of crime.
Persons were interviewed as long as 20
years after they had been iclentified as
drug involved by the Baltimore police.
Other than verifying that most of these
persons were using drugs at about the
time they were placed on the list (Bonito,
Nurco, anc3 Shaffer, 1976), few checks
were macle to verify that the behavioral
patterns recalled were accurate. This
study may also be limited by biases in
self-reported behaviors (discussed in Ap-
pendix A), which could have produced a
strong association between drug use and
crime in certain periods as an artifact of
the measures. While the number of crime
clays per year is measured, the study does
not report data from which As may be
computed. In addition, the computation
of crimes per clay is not straightforward,
given ambiguity in the way the pertinent
questionnaire items were worcled.
National Youth Survey (Elliott ant]
Huizinga, 1984)
Sample: Consists of 1,725 youths se-
lectecI as a representative sample of
American youths aged 11 to 17 in 1976.
Persons were reinterviewed annually
CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS
from 1977 to 1981 about their delinquent
anc3 drug-using behaviors.
Primary Measures: Self-reports from
personal interviews about behaviors clur-
ing a 12-month period. Also obtained rec-
ords of arrests.
Validity Checks: For criminal behav-
ior, used arrest records; for recent (1rug
use, used internal consistency checks.
Study Design: Prospective longitudi-
nal design; each year of birth cohort was
treated as an indepenclent sample.
Significance of Study: This is the
largest ant] longest study of a national
sample of youths that is available. It is
recognize(1 for its design and execution.
Its reports contain measures of crime
rates (routinely reported) for various
types of clelinquent behavior. It provides
the best information available about de-
linquency in a large, representative sam-
ple of youths.
Potential Limitations: The major lim-
itation is the small number of youths
reporting extensive clelinquency anc3 se-
rious drug use in a national probability
sample. Heroin use was almost nonexis-
tent (1 percent or less). While (dropouts
from the study do not appear to slider
substantially from reinterviewees, the
Toss of even three to five highly clelin-
quent youths could have re(lucecl crime
rates.
Economic Behavior of Street Opiate
Users (Johnson et al., 1985)
Sample: Consists of 201 heroin and
methadone users recruite(1 from the
streets of East and Central Harlem in
New York City. Subjects were inter-
viewed nine or more times an(1 provided
a total of 11,400 person-days of informa-
tion about their behaviors. Researchers
were not successful in (leveloping a sam-
pling frame from which to select persons
with a known probability of selection.
Primary Measures: Self-reports
Bring 33 or more clays per person with
OCR for page 83
THE IMPACT OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE ON CRIMINAL CAREERS
respect to crimes (type, number, clolIar,
and drug income), drug patterns (use,
purchase, sales, noncriminal income,
noncIrug expenditures, arrests, and drug
treatment.
Validity Checks: For criminal behav-
ior, some observations of subjects com-
mitting crime in the streets, internal
consistency checks cluring follow-up in-
terview, reporting of similar crimes dur-
ing different interviews; occasionally,
two or more subjects reported about the
same crime event. No arrest records were
obtained. Reports of drug use were not
validated, although many subjects report-
ing use appeared intoxicated at the time
of interview.
Study Design: Convenience sample
of persons encountered on the street who
were screened by exaddict field-workers
for heroin and methadone use and prob-
able criminal behavior; subjects selected
to represent the diversity of drug and
criminal life-styles in the neighborhood;
subjects reported to storefront research
once each clay for 5 days and then 1 day
per week (for 1 month or longer) to re-
count prior week's activities.
Significance of Study: This is the first
study to compute crime rates from data
about self-reported crime for persons
while they were active on the streets. It is
one of the few studies to present detailed
daily and annualized data on the dollar
returns from drug use, drug-ctistribution
activities, and other crimes, as well as
other economic behaviors. The study
presents both quantitative and qualitative
information about heroin abusers who are
serious and regular criminal offenders.
Potential Limitations: The sample is
small and limited in geographical area,
and it clid not follow accepted sampling
procedures. It is unknown how represen-
tative the respondents are of other of-
fenders in New York City or in other
cities. The As include numerous small
drug-distribution crimes. The analyses
seldom control for the effects of demo
83
graphic characteristics (sex, age, ethnic-
ity, age of onset, education, etc.) on the As
computed.
Studies from the National Institute of
;/ustice-Funded Interdisciplinary
Research Center (IRC) for the Study
of the Relationship of Drug Use anct
Crime (Strug, Stevie, et al., 1984;
Strug, Wish, et al., 1984; Glassner et
al., 1985)
Samples: Three samples: youths in a
moclerate-size city in New York (N =
1001; unapprehen~lec3, clrug-using aclult
criminals in East Harlem (N = 179~; and
aclults arrested for possession or sale of
drugs in the East Harlem area (N = 116~.
Primary Measures: Intensive, open-
en(le(1 interviews of youths; structured
personal interviews and urine tests for
apprehended and unapprehended adult
. . .
criminals.
Validity Checks: Internal checks and
some corroboration by other youths; stud-
ies of adults checked urine tests against
self-reports of recent use of illicit drugs
and found considerable concordance.
Study Design: Studies of youths in-
volvec3 three subsamples: a random sam-
ple from school lists, a purposive sample
based on field observations of deviant
youths, and a sample of juveniles adjudi-
cated as delinquent and residing in group
homes or detention centers. Youths were
interviewed for an average of 4 hours
about their drug use, adjustment, and cle-
v~ance.
Studies of unapprehended and appre-
hended adults in East Harlem: unap-
prehended har(l-(lrug users who hac3 re-
cently committed a serious nondrug
crime were recruited from the streets en cl
interviewed about the crime event anti
the rote of drug and alcohol use in that
event. A comparison group of 116 ar-
restees were interviewed in a police sta-
tion (in the same neighborhood as the
unapprehended (lrug users ) about their
OCR for page 84
84
cTrug-use histories and a urine specimen
was obtained. A second follow-up inter-
view was obtained for 43 of these 116
persons after release. The releasees who
showed up for reinterview were more
indigent and reported more lifetime cle-
penclence on drugs than those who dic3
not show up. Their educational and eth-
nic backgrounds were similar to those
who were not reinterviewed, as was their
level of recent use of drugs. The fol-
Tow-up interview was identical to the in-
terview used with unapprehended per-
sons and was followed by collection of a
. .
urine specimen.
Significance of Study: Study of youths
obtained in-clepth information about drugs
and crime and successfully oversampled
high-risk youths. Studies of aclult criminals
obtained information about the role of drug
and alcohol use in the crime event and
examined the criminal justice system's
processing of drug-involvec! arrestees.
Potential Limitations: Study of youths
had a small sample and collected much
information in a qualitative way that limits
quantification and extrapolation to other
populations. The studies of unappre-
hencled persons used paid recruiters to fincl
persons who tract just committed crimes.
The degree to which the stucly respondents
are representative of other adctictect o~end-
ers is unknown. The comparison group of
arrestees does provide some indication of
the potential biases in the data from unap-
prehended respondents. The arrestees in
the study were primarily arrested for pur-
chase, sale, or possession of cocaine or her-
oin, and some findings may not apply to
arrestees charged with nondrug crimes or
to persons arrested in over jurisdictions in
New York City.
Adclitional Current Studies
Two ongoing studies of urine testing of
arrestees, in Washington, D.C., and in
New York City, have also influenced the
CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS
conclusions presented in this paper. The
study in Washington (Toborg, 1984) is
examining whether it is effective for
judges to assign cirug-using arrestees to
specific pretrial release conditions (treat-
ment and/or urine monitoring) based on
the results of a test of a urine specimen
obtained shortly after arrest. The study in
New York City (Wish, Bracly, and Cuadra-
do, 1984, l9X5; Wish, Bracly, et al., 19~34;
Wish, Chedekel, et al., 19~35) is examining
the feasibility of using urine tests to iclen-
tify arrestees at high risk of pretrial arrest
and failure to appear in court.
REFERENCES
Anderson, Kevin, Wish, Eric, Johnson, Bruce D.,
Sears, Alton, and Miller, Tom
1984 Living Hard in the City: A Portrait of Ten
Young "Hustlers." Paper presented at a
meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice
Sciences, Chicago, Illinois, March.
Anglin, M. Douglas, and McGlothlin, William H.
1984 Outcome of narcotic addict treatment in Cali-
fornia. Pp. 10~128 in Frank M. Tims and Jac-
queline P. Ludford, eds., Drug Abuse Treat-
ment Evaluation: Strategies, Progress, and
Prospects. Research Monograph 51. Rock-
ville, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Bachman, Jerald G., and O'Malley, Patrick M.
1981 When four months equal a year: inconsisten-
cies in student reports of drug use. Public
Opinion Quarterly 45:536 548.
Ball, John C., Shaffer, John W., and Nurco, David N.
1983 The day-to-day criminality of heroin addicts
in Baltimore a study in the continuity of
offense rates. Drug and Alcohol Dependence
12: 119-142.
Ball, John C., Roxen, Lawrence, Flueck, John A.,
and Nurco, David N.
1981 The criminality of heroin addicts when ad-
dicted and when off opiates. Pp. 39 66 in
James A. Inciardi, ea., The Drugs-Crime
Connection. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Pub-
lications.
Barton, William I.
1976 Heroin use and criminality: survey of state
correctional facilities, January 1974. Pp. 419-
440 in National Institute on Drug Abuse and
Research Triangle Institute, Drug Use and
Crime: Report of the Panel on Drug Use and
Criminal Behavior. Appendix. Research Tri
OCR for page 85
THE IMPACT OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE ON CRIMINAL CAREERS ~5
angle Park, N.C.: Research Triangle Insti-
tute.
Baxley, Robert C.
1980 Voluntary intoxication from phencyclidine:
will it raise a reasonable doubt of the mental
capacity of a person charged with a crime re-
quiring specific intent or mental state?Jour-
nal of Psychedelic Drugs 12(3-4):33~335.
Bonito, Arthur J., Nurco, David N., and Shaffer, John
W.
1976 The veridicality of addicts' self-reports in
social research. International Journal of Ad-
dictions 11(5):719-724.
Bureau of Justice Statistics
1983a Prisoners and Alcohol. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice.
1983b Prisoners and Drugs. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Depa~llent of Justice.
Chaiken, Jan, and Chaiken, Marcia
1982 Varieties of Criminal Behavior. Santa
Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation.
Chaiken, Marcia
1983 Crime Rates and Substance Abuse Among
Types of Offenders. Unpublished paper. In-
terdisciplinary Research Center, New York
City.
Clayton, Richard R., and Voss, Harwin L.
1981 Young Men and Drugs in Manhattan: A
Causal Analysis. Research Monograph 39.
Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Drug
Abuse.
Cohen, Jacqueline
1978 The incapacitative effect of imprisonment: a
critical review of the literature. Pp. 187-243
in Alfred Blumstein, Jacqueline Cohen, and
Daniel Nagin, eds., Deterrence and Incapac-
itation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal
Sanctions on Crime Rates. Washington,
D.C.: National Academy Press.
Collins, fames J., and Allison, Margret
1983 Legal coercion and retention in drug abuse
treatment. Hospital and Community Psychi-
atry 14(12~:1145-1149.
Collins, James J., Hubbard, Robert, and Rachal, J.
Valley
1985 Expensive drug use and illegal income: a
test of explanatory hypotheses. Criminology
23:743-764.
Collins, James J., Rachal, J. Valley, Hubbard, Rob-
ert, Cavanaugh, Elizabeth R., Craddock, S. Gail, and
Kristiansen, Patricia L.
1982a Crime and Crime Indicators in the Treat-
ment Outcome Prospective Study. Research
Triangle Park, N.C.: Research Triangle
Institute.
1982b Criminality in a Drug Treatment Sample:
Measurement Issues and Initial Findings.
Research Triangle Park, N.C.: Research Tri-
angle Institute.
DuPont, Robert L., and Kozel, Nicholas J.
1976 Heroin Use and Crime. Paper presented at a
meeting of the American Psychiatric Associ-
ation, Miami Beach, Florida.
Elliott, Delbert S., and Huizinga, David
1984 The Relationship Between Delinquent Be-
havior and ADM Problems. Boulder, Colo.:
Behavioral Research Institute.
Elliott, Delbert S., Ageton, Suzanne S., Huizinga,
David, Knowles, Brian, and Canter, Rachelle T.
1983 The Prevalence and Incidence of Delinquent
Behavior: 107~1980. National Youth Sur-
vey Report 26. Boulder, Colo.: Behavioral
Research Institute.
Fauman, Beverly J., and Fauman, Michael A.
1982 Phencyclidine abuse and crime: a psychiat-
ric perspective. Bulletin of the American
Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
10~3~:171-176.
Feinberg, Kenneth R.
1984 Selective incapacitation and the effort to im-
prove the fairness of existing sentencing
practices. Unpublished paper. Kaye,
Scholer, Fierrnan, Hays, and Handler, Wash-
ington, D.C. Law and Society.
Forst, Brian, and Wish, Eric
1983 Drug use and crime: providing a missing
link. Pp. 84-95 in Kenneth R. Feinberg, ea.,
Violent Crime in America. Washington,
D.C.: National Policy Exchange.
Gandossy, Robert P., Williams, Jay R., Cohen, Jo,
and Harwood, Henrick J.
1980 Drugs and Crime: A Survey and Analysis of
the Literature. National Institute of Justice.
Washington, 13.C.: U.S. Government Print-
ing Office.
Glassner, Barry, Loughlin, Julia, Johnson, Bruce D.,
Carpenter, Cheryl, Ksander, Margret, Berg, Bruce,
and Stuck, Mary
1985 Drugs and Alcohol in Adolescent Delin-
quency. Interdisciplinary Research Center.
New York City.
Goldstein, Paul J.
1981 Getting over: economic alternatives to pred-
atory crime among street drug users. Pp.
67~4 in James A. Inciardi, ea., The Drugs-
Crime Connection. Beverly Hills, Calif.:
Sage Publications.
1985 The drugs/violence nexus: a tripartite con-
ceptual framework. Journal of Drug Issues
15:493-506.
1983 Drug Related Involvement in Violent Epi-
sodes. Proposal to the National Institute on
Drug Abuse. New York City: Narcotic and
Drug Research, Inc.
OCR for page 86
86
Greenberg, Stephanie W., and Adler, Freda
1974 Crime and addiction: an empirical analysis
of the literature, 192~1973. Contemporary
Drug Problems 3:221-270.
Haberman, Paul, and Baden, Michael
1978 Alcohol, Other Drugs and Violet Death.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Heffernan, Ronald, Martin, John M., and Romano,
Anne T.
1982 Homicides related to drug trafficking. Fed-
eral Probation September:3-7.
Huizinga, David, and Elliott, Delbert S.
1981 A Longitudinal Study of Drug Use and De-
linquency in a National Sample of Youth: An
Assessment of Causal Order. Boulder, Colo.:
Behavioral Research Institute.
Hunt, Dana, Lipton, Douglas S., and Spunt, Barry
1984 Patterns of criminal activity among metha-
done clients and current narcotics users not
in treatment. Journal of Drug Issues 14:687-
702.
Inciardi, James A.
1979 Heroin use and street crime. Crime and
Delinquency July:33~346.
1981 The Drugs-Crime Connection. Beverly
Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.
1984 Criminal Justice. Orlando, Fla.: Academic
Press.
Jessor, Richard
1979 Marihuana: a review of recent psychosocial
research. Pp. 337-355 in Robert L. Dupont,
Avram Goldstein, and John O'Donnell, eds.,
Handbook on Drug Abuse. Rockville, Md.:
National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Jessor, Richard, and Jessor, Shirley
1977 Problem Behavior and Psychosocial Devel-
opment: A Longitudinal Study of Youth.
New York: Academic Press.
Johnson, Bruce D.
1973 Marijuana Users and Drug Subcultures.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
1984 Empirical patterns of heroin consumption
among selected street heroin users. Pp.
101-123 in George Serban, eel., Social and
Medical Aspects of Drug Abuse. Jamaica,
N.Y.: Spectrum Publications.
Johnson, Bruce D., Wish, Eric, and Huizinga, David
1983 The Concentration of Delinquent Offend-
ing: The Contribution of Serious Drug
Involvement to High Rate Delinquency. Pa-
per presented at a meeting of the American
Society of Criminology, Denver, Novem-
ber.
Johnson, Bruce D., Goldstein, Paul, Preble,
Edward, Schmeidler, James, Lipton, Douglas S.,
Spunt, Barry, and Miller, Thomas
1985 Taking Care of Business: The Economics of
CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS
Crime by Heroin Abusers. Lexington, Mass.:
Lexington Books.
Johnston, Lloyd, Bachman, Jerald G., and O'Malley,
Patrick
1982 Student Drug Use, Attitudes, and Beliefs:
1975~1982. Rockville, Md.: National Insti-
tute on Drug Abuse.
Kandel, Denise B.
1978 Longitudinal Research on Drug Use. New
York: Halsted Press.
1984 Marijuana users in young adulthood. Ar-
chives of General Psychiatry 41:20~209.
Kaplan, John
1983 The Hardest Drug: Heroin and Drug Policy.
Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.
Kleinman, Paula H., Wish, Eric D., Deren, Sherry,
and Rainone, Gregory
1984 The "Pure" Marijuana-using Client: Where?
Unpublished paper. Narcotic and Drug Re-
search, Inc., New York.
Kozel, Nicholas J., ar~d DuPont, Robert
1977 Criminal Charges and Drug Use Patterns of
Arrestees in the District of Columbia.
Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Drug
Abuse.
LuPoff, Irving F.
1974 Issues in the evaluation of heroin treatment.
Pp. 12~157 in Eric Josephson and Eleanor
C. Carroll, eds., Drug Use: Epidemiological
and Sociological Approaches. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
1976 Consequences of use: heroin and other nar-
cotics. Pp. 19~227 in Joan Rittenhouse, ea.,
The Epidemiology of Heroin and OtherNar-
cotics. Research Monograph 16. Rockville,
Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
McBride, Duane C.
1983 Homicides and Violence among Miami
Drug Dealers. Paper presented at a meeting
of the Society for the Study of Social Prob-
lems, Detroit, Michigan, August.
McGlothlin, William H.
1979 Drugs and crime. Pp. 357~65 in Robert L.
Dupont, Avram Goldstein, and John O'Don-
nell, eds., Handbook on Drug Abuse.
Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Drug
Abuse.
McGlothlin, William H., Anglin, M. Douglas, and
Wilson, Bruce D.
1977 An Evaluation of the California Civil Addict
Program. Services Research Issues Series.
Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Drug
Abuse.
Morgan, John P.
1984 Problems of mass screening for misused
drugs. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
16(4):30~317.
OCR for page 87
THE IMPACT OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE ON CRIMINAL CAREERS
Nurco, David N., Cisin, Ira H., and Baiter, Mitchell B.
1981a Addict careers. I. A new typology. Interna-
tional Journal of the Addictions 16(8):
130~1325.
1981b Addict careers. II. The first ten years. Inter-
national Journal of the Addictions 16(8):
1327-1356.
1981c Addict careers. III. Trends across time. Inter-
national Journal of the Addictions 16(8):
1357-1372.
1982 Trends in the age of onset of narcotic addic-
tion. Chemical Dependencies: Behavorial
and Biomedical I ssues 4(3) :221-228.
O'Donnell, John A., and Clayton, Richard R.
1981 The steppingstone hypothesis: a reappraisal.
Chemical Dependencies 4.
O'Donnell, John A., Voss, Harwin L., Clayton, Rich
ard, Slahn' Gerald T., and Room, Rol~in G.
1976 Young Men and Drugs-A Nationwide Sur-
vey. Research Monograph 5. Rockville, Md.:
National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Peterson, Robert C., and Stillman, Richard C., eds.
1978 Phencyclidine (PCPJ Abuse: An Appraisal.
Research Monograph 21. Rockville, Md.:
National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Reuter, Peter
1984 The (continued) vitality of mythical num-
bers. Public Interest 75: 13~147.
Robins, Lee N.
1979 Addict careers. Pp. 325 336 in Robert L.
Dupont, Avrarn Goldstein, and John O'Don-
nell, eds., Handbook on Drug Abuse. Rock-
ville, Md.: National Institute on DrugAbuse.
Robins, Lee N., and Wish, Eric
1977 Development of childhood deviance: a study
of 223 urban black men from birth to 18. Pp.
448-473 in Mae F. McMillian and Serrgio
Henao, eds., Child Psychiatry Treatment and
Research. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Also
published in Social Forces 56(2):448-473.
Robins, Lee N., Davis, Darlene H., and Wish,
Eric D.
1977 Detecting predictors of rare events: demo-
graphic;, family, and personal deviance as
predictors of stages in the progression to-
wards narcotic addiction. Pp.379-406 in J. S.
Strauss, H. M. Babigian, and M. Hoff, eds.,
The Origins and Course of Psychopathol-
ogy. New York: Plenum.
Robins, Lee N., Helzer, John E., Hesselbrock,
Michie, and Wish, Eric D.
1980 Vietnam veterans three years after Vietnam:
how our study changed our view of heroin.
In L. Brill and C. Winick, eds., Yearbook of
Substance Abuse. New York: Human Sci-
ences Press.
87
Robins, Lee N., Hessellbroc>k, Mic~hie, Wish, Eric
D., and Helzer, John E.
1977 Polydrug and alcohol use by veterans and
nonveterans. Pp. 74-90 in David E. Smith,
Steven M. Anderson, Millicent Buxton,
Nancv Gottlieb William Harvev and
7
~ 7
Tommy Chung, eds., A Multicultural View
of Drug Abuse: Proceedings of the National
DrugAbuse Conference, 1977. Philadelphia,
Pa.: Hall and Schenkman.
1~978 Alcohol and Crime in Veterans. Paper pre-
sented at the National Institute on Law En-
forcement and Criminal Justice Colloquium,
Washington, D.C.
Sells, Saul B., Stimson, D. D., Joe, G. H., Demaree,
R. G., Savage, L. J., and Lloyd, M. R.
1976 A national follow-up study to evaluate the
effectiveness of drug, abuse treatment: a re-
port on cohort I of DARP five years later.
American Journal of Drug and Alcohol
Abuse 3(4~:54~556.
Siegel, Ronald K.
1978 Phencyclidine, criminal behavior, and the
defense of diminished capacity. Pp. 272
288 in Robert C. Peterson and Richard C.
Stillman, eds., Phencyclidine (PCP) Abuse:
An Appraisal. Research Monograph 21. Rock-
ville, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
1980 PCP and violent crime: the people vs. peace.
Journal of Psychedelic Drugs 12(3~):317-
330.
Silverman, Lester P., and Spruill, Nancy L.
1977 Urban crime and the puce of heroin. Journal
of Urban Economics 4:8(}103.
Simonds, John F., and Kashani, Javad
1980 Specific drug use and violence in delinquent
boys. AmericanJournal of Drug and Alcohol
Abuse 7(3&4~:305 322.
Singer, Max
1971 The vitality of mythical numbers. Public In-
terest 23:~9.
Single, Eric, and Kandel, Denise B.
1978 The role of buying and selling in illicit drug
use. Pp. 118-128 in Arnold Trebach, ea.,
Drugs, Crime, and Politics. New York: Prae
t~er.
Strug, David, Stevie, B., Wish, Eric, Johnson, Bruce
D., Miller, Tom, and Anderson, Kevin
1984 Hustling to Survive: The Role of Drugs,
Alcohol, and Crime in the Lid of Street
Hustlers. Paper presented at a meeting of the
Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Chi-
cago, March.
Strug, David, Wish, Eric,
Johnson, Bruce D.,
Anderson, Kevin, and Miller, Tom
1984 The role of alcohol in the crimes of heroin
OCR for page 88
88
abusers. Crime and Delinquency 30(4):551-
567.
Tinklenberg, Jared R.
1973 Drugs and crime. Pp. 242~299 in National
Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse,
Drug Use in America: Problem in Perspec-
tive. Vol. I, Appendix. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Tinklenberg, Jared R., and Ochberg, Frank M.
1981 Patterns of adolescent violence: a California
sample. Pp. 121-140 in Jared R. Tinklen-
berg and Frank M. Ochberg, eds., Behavioral
Aspects of Aggression. New York: Alan Liss.
Tinklenberg, Jared R., Roth, W. T., Kopell, B. S.,
and Murphy, P.
1976 Cannabis and alcohol effects on assaultive-
ness in adolescent delinquents. Pp. 85-94 in
Chronic Cannabis Use. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences 282.
Tinklenberg, Jared R., Murphy, Peggy, Murphy,
Patricia L., and Pfefferbaum, Arnold
1981 Drugs and criminal assaults by adolescents:
a replication study. Journal of Psychoactive
Drugs 1343~:277-287.
Toborg, Mary
1984 Preliminary Findings on the D.C. Urine
Testing Experiment. Paper presented at a
Meeting of the American Society of Crirni-
nology, Cincinnati.
Voss, EIarwin L.
1976 Young men, drugs and crime. Pp.351-385 in
Robert Shellow, ea., Drug Use andCrime:
Appendix, Report of the Panel on Drug Use
and Criminal Behavior. Research Triangle
Park, N.C.: Research Triangle Institute.
Washton, Arnold M., and Gold, Mark S.
1984 Chronic cocaine abuse: evidence for adverse
effects on health and functioning. Psychiat-
ricAnnals 14(10):733-743.
Weissman, James C.
1979 Understanding the drugs and crime connec-
tion: a systematic examination of drugs and
crime relationships. Journal of Psychedelic
Drugs 10:171-192.
Winick, Charles S.
1962 Maturing out of narcotic addiction. Bulletin
on Narcotics 14:1-7.
Wish, Eric D.
1982 Are [Ieroin Users lleally Nonviolent? Paper
presented at a meeting of the Academy of
Criminal Justice Sciences, Louisville, Ken-
tucky, March.
1986 PCP and crime: just another illicit drug? Pp.
174-189 in D. PI. Clouet, ea., Phencyclidine:
an Update. National Institute on Drug
CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS
Abuse. Research Monograph No. 64. Rock-
ville, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Wish, Eric D., Brady, Elizabeth, and Cuadrado,
Mary
1984 Female Arrestees: The Most Serious Drug-
abusers? Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Society of Crimi-
nology, Cincinnati, Ohio, November.
1985 Drug Use and Crime in Arrestees in Manhat-
tan. Presented at a poster session of the
Forty-seventh Annual Scientific Meeting of
the Committee on Problems of Drug Depen-
dence, Baltimore, Maryland.
Wish, Eric D., Anderson, Kevin, Miller, Tom, and
Johnson, Bruce D.
1984 Drug Use and Abuse in Arrestees: New
Findings from a Study of Arrestees in Man-
hattan. Paper presented at a meeting of the
American Criminal Justice Society, Chicago,
Illinois, March.
Wish, Eric D., Brady, Elizabeth, Cuadrado, Mary,
and Sears, Alton
1984 Preliminary Findings from the "Drug Use as
a Predictor of Pretrial Behavior in Arrestees"
Project. Paper presented at the annual meet-
ing of the American Society of Criminology,
Cincinnati, Ohio, November.
Wish, Eric D., Chedekel, Morris, Brady, Elizabeth,
and Cuadrado, Mary
1985 Comparison of the Use of Thin-layer Chro-
matography and EMITS for Detecting Re-
cent Drug Use by Arrestees. Paper pre-
sented at the annual meeting of the
American Academy of Forensic Sciences,
Las Vegas, Nevada.
Wish, Eric D., Klumpp, K. A., Moorer, A. PI., and
Brady, E.
1980 An Analysis of Drugs and Crime Among
Arrestees in the District of Columbia.
Springfield, Va: National Technical Informa-
tion Service.
1981 Executive Summary: An Analysis of Drugs
and Crime Among Arrestees in the District
of Columbia. Washington, D.C.: National In-
stitute on Justice.
Wish, Eric D., Strug, David, Anderson, Kevin,
Miller, Tom, and Johnson, Bruce D.
1983 Are Urine Tests Good Indicators of the Va-
lidity of Self-Reports of Drug Use? It De-
pends on the Test. Paper presented at the
American Society of Criminology Meeting,
Denver, Colorado, November.
Zinberg, Norman
1984 Drugs, Set, and Setting. Chicago, Ill.: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
criminal careers
