The Crime and Safety Blind Spot: Does drug use cause criminality?

This is part of the “Crime and Safety Blind Spot” series, which presents an opportunity to understand various perspectives, entertain new ones, and consider different conclusions. Read the introduction and view other posts here.

INTRODUCTION

Some argue that drug use has turned neighborhoods into open-air drug markets, leading to needle-littered streets, break-ins, and heightened aggression, necessitating stricter measures to hold people accountable. Conversely, others contend drug use and crime are not causal, but rather results of the same social and economic factors, and that addressing public health issues with jail is ineffective. In this post, we will explore various views, studies, and solutions related to the intersection of crime and drug use.

EXPLORING KEY PERSPECTIVES AND BLIND SPOTS

What is the relationship between crime and drug use trends?

The following charts provide a high-level view of drug use and crime trends from 2008-2022.

National Data collected from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Potential Blind Spot: Drug overdose deaths are often used to track drug use trends because they are easily and consistently measured. However, it is unclear if the rise in overdose deaths is due to more drug use or to increased potency. Mental health and substance use disorders frequently co-occur, also complicating analysis as it can be unclear if overdoses are intentional (suggesting suicide) or unintentional (indicating drug misuse). The types of drugs used and their interactions with mental health and criminality could also influence the overall picture.

Does drug use contribute to criminal behavior?

• A 2017 Bureau of Justice Statistics study found about 40 percent of convicted individuals used drugs at the time of their offense, with an earlier report showing similar findings for alcohol. Additionally, nearly 40 percent of property crime inmates and 14 percent of violent crime inmates committed their most serious offense to obtain drugs.
• Research from 2017 revealed opioid users committed more crimes than non-users, both before and after using, with a higher propensity for non-serious crimes. Women were more likely to commit a crime than men when using opioids.
• A 2018 study showed that binge drinkers or sedatives users are more likely to commit violent crimes, whereas those who use heroin, amphetamines, cocaine, or inject drugs are less likely to do so.

Potential Blind Spot: Do people who use drugs have a higher tendency to commit crimes simply because of an inclination for risk-taking and rule-breaking? Thus, drug use may not cause criminal behavior, rather underlying personality traits or structural factors influence both. Compromised mental acuity of those using substances when the crime occurs might get caught more, skewing data, especially given low crime clearance rates. Substance withdrawal may also be more to blame for criminality than the use of it. Additionally, drug use doesn’t always lead to criminal behavior, highlighting the need to explore other factors at play.

What is the impact of government interventions of drug use?

• Approximately one in five people incarcerated are there for drug offenses. Probation and parole technical violations for drug use also result in high levels of re-incarceration.
• Oregon’s drug decriminalization law—repealed in 2024—aimed to shift focus from punishment to public health, reducing incarceration. Results remain debated: Some claim success with stable drug use trends and decreased crime rates; others blame the law for more overdose and increased public disorder.
• As of 2018, 38 jurisdictions allowed involuntary commitment for substance use, with varying substantive criteria for commitment, like “dangerous to self or others” or “gravely incapacitated.” Massachusetts and Florida use this approach frequently, committing thousands annually, while most other states rarely use this tool. California is the latest to pass such legislation.

Potential Blind Spot: Despite prioritizing incarceration during the War on Drugs, drug use continued to spike, indicating punitive measures alone don’t work. Success in any approach relies on comprehensive treatment systems, which are often lacking. Why isn’t more focus on the accessibility of research-backed treatment options rather than the initial response to drug use? Critical questions about the impact on individual liberties, the most compassionate response, and the most effective ways to encourage individuals into treatment also need to be answered. Notably, policy discussions often overlook alcohol’s role in criminality.

How does drug treatment affect reoffense rates?

• Most individuals in the justice system needing substance use disorder treatment don’t receive it, and when they do, it is often insufficient. Some may believe that jail may help someone “sober up,” but that strategy has been found ineffective and potentially dangerous.
• There is ongoing debate of whether mandatory or voluntary treatment is more effective. An analysis of nine studies of mandatory drug treatment and reoffense rates revealed no significant effects in three studies, mixed results in two studies, negative effects in two studies, and positive effects in two studies. Some studies show voluntary treatment has better outcomes.
• A 2013 study found legally mandated treatments can improve participation rates and have similar success to voluntary programs. Drug-specific diversion and drug courts can reduce drug use and repeat offenses. Similarly, some jail interventions—including access to medication—with community-based treatment can improve outcomes after release.

Potential Blind Spot: Current research often relies on analyzing older studies, underscoring the need for fresh, detailed studies. Does the general consensus on providing treatment—mandatory or voluntary—stem from a genuine desire to help or discomfort with public drug use? If the former, should individuals have the right to refuse treatment, or is addiction subject to the same involuntary medical treatment of other medical emergencies? If the latter, does the threat of punishment, compassionate approaches, or a blend more effectively encourage lasting sobriety and law-abiding behavior? We must also consider the negative consequences when options are overused, underfunded, or mismanaged.

R STREET’S PERSPECTIVE

Substance use leads to criminal justice involvement directly through drug possession crimes and driving while impaired, and possibly indirectly through crimes like thefts to purchase drugs and substance-induced violent acts. Neither punitive measures nor voluntary treatment alone are sufficient to address the rising drug use nationwide. Punitive approaches often result in a cycle of incarceration without rehabilitation, failing to address the root causes of substance use. On the other hand, voluntary programs may not reach those most in need due to stigma or lack of resources. While the connection between drug use and crime receives significant attention, alcohol’s impact is often overlooked, despite its similar effects. This oversight highlights a potential disparity in how we evaluate substance use and criminality.

In general, treatment is limited and often inadequate, especially given the frequent coexistence of substance use and mental health disorders which exacerbate each other and complicate treatment. Integrated options and comprehensive support systems are essential to address these intertwined issues. More resources are needed to identify the best ways to adopt, implement, and sustain effective treatments for those inside and outside the justice system, including how different methods work for various individuals at different stages. Quick access to treatment is also crucial, and systems must improve in this area.

Providing several options—including mandatory and voluntary—will likely prove best. Different individuals are likely going to respond to different approaches. Involuntary hospitalization, while controversial, could be potentially lifesaving if used correctly with sufficient safeguards to protect individual liberties and ensure treatment not punishment. For some, a voluntary approach will ensure commitment to treatment, but others may need compelled participation to receive help. Regardless of the method, more resources and attention must be dedicated to ensuring immediate access to treatment at every stage of the system.