Bennett, Trevor y Katy Holloway (2005) The Association Between Multiple Drug Use and Crime.

International Journal
of Offender Therapy, volumen 49, nmero 1. Thousand Oaks, California, Estados Unidos. Sage. Pginas 63 a 81.

The Association Between

Multiple Drug Misuse and Crime
Trevor Bennett
Katy Holloway

Abstract: Research that has investigated the association between specific drug types and
crime has tended to focus on the specific drug type in isolation from other drugs. The main
problem with this is that it cannot be assumed that the association between specific drug use
and crime will be the same regardless of the additional drugs consumed. The research aimed to
investigate whether there was a correlation between number and type of drugs used and
involvement in crime. The analysis of multiple drug use was based on data collected as part of
the New English and Welsh Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring program in the United Kingdom.
The results showed that both the number of drug types consumed and the particular drug type
combinations used explained offending rate. The research concluded that the investigation of
links between multiple drug use and crime might help inform antidrugs strategies and treat-
ment services.

Keywords: drugs; crime; multiple drug use; polydrug use; cluster analysis; NEW-ADAM

Research on the connection between drug misuse and crime has tended to focus
on either aggregated measures of drug misuse and criminal behavior or specific
types of drugs and specific types of offences. Little attention has been paid to the
extent to which combinations of drug misuse might be connected to crime. This is
surprising for at least two reasons. First, there has been considerable attention
paid in the research literature to the existence and role of what is sometimes
referred to as polydrug or multiple drug misuse. However, much of this discussion
has focused on explaining the phenomenon of drug misuse or the implications of
multiple drug misuse for treatment. Second, there are a number of plausible rea-
sons to suspect that drug use combinations might be important in explaining
crime. These include direct effects, such as the potential interactive or additive
effects of drug mixing on judgment or behavior, and indirect effects, such as the
potential amplifying effect of involvement in drug misuse on offending (or vice
versa).
Research that has investigated the association between specific drug types and
crime has tended to investigate the use of the specific drug type in isolation from

NOTE: The findings reported in this article derive from the New English and Welsh Arrestee Drug
Abuse Monitoring program, which was funded by the U.K. Home Office. The opinions expressed in
the article are not the official view of the Home Office and should not be considered an indication of
Home Office policy.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49(1), 2005 63-81
DOI: 10.1177/0306624X04269003
2005 Sage Publications
63
64 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

other drugs. Many studies, for example, have investigated the association be-
tween heroin misuse and criminal behavior. However, few have investigated the
association between heroin use in combination with other drugs and criminal
behavior. The main problem with this is that it cannot be assumed that the associa-
tion between heroin use and crime will be the same regardless of the additional
drugs consumed. Instead, it is likely that the nature of the drugs-crime connection
will be governed by the particular combination of drug types used in conjunction
with heroin.
This article aims to identify what has been reported in the research literature on
drug combinations and crime and to present the results of our own research on
multiple drug misuse (henceforth use) and criminal behavior among arrestees in
England and Wales.

MULTIPLE DRUG USE

To discuss the effect of multiple drug use on crime, it might be useful to con-
sider what is meant by multiple drug use, polydrug use, and similar terms. The
terms have slightly different meanings, and these differences can cause problems
in conducting and evaluating research in this area.
The first problem is differentiating between various similar words and phrases
such as polydrug use, multiple drug use, drug mixing, consecutive drug use, con-
current drug use, simultaneous drug use, co-use, co-occurrence, supplemental
drug use, subsidiary drug use, and sequential drug use. The words are similar in
that they all refer to use of more than one type of drug. However, they vary in terms
of contexts of drug use (e.g., whether it is connected to drug treatment) and the
time scale over which multiple drugs are consumed (e.g., at the same time or over
longer periods of time).
There are a number of examples in the literature of the concept of multiple drug
use being linked to specific contexts. Some writers have defined polydrug use in
the context of subsidiary drug use among users in treatment. Fountain, Griffiths,
Farrell, Gossop, and Strang (1999) use the term polydrug user to refer to users
who supplement their prescribed drugs with additional nonprescribed drugs.
Best, Sidwell, Gossop, Harris, and Strang (2001) also refer to polydrug use in the
context of users in treatment whose consumption of heroin is supplemented with a
combination of prescribed and nonprescribed drugs.
There are also examples of variations in the time scale over which the drugs are
consumed. Wilkinson, Leigh, Cordingley, Martin, and Lei (1987) use the term
polydrug use to mean use of more than one drug type, either over time or at a point
in time. They define polydrug users as users of a variety of psychoactive sub-
stances, either concurrently or sequentially (p. 259). Pennings, Leccese, and De
Wolff (2002) define concurrent use as occurring when both drugs are consumed at
the same time in such a way that they might interact in terms of their physiological
effects. Leri, Bruneau, and Stewart (2003) provide an example of the simulta-
The Association Between Multiple Drug Misuse and Crime 65

neous use of heroin and cocaine in which cocaine is injected as a mixture with her-
oin or is injected immediately before or immediately after heroin (sometimes
without removal of the syringe).
There is also some variation in the length of time scale over which drug use
combinations can be considered as consecutive or sequential. Leri et al. (2003)
refer to sequential use as one drug being used shortly after another to offset or
enhance the effects. However, some authors have included longer time periods.
Simpson and Sells (1974) investigated multiple drug use over a 2-month period
before admission to treatment. Darke and Hall (1995) investigated polydrug use
over the past 6 months. Wilkinson et al. (1987) examined multiple drug use over
the past 12 months before the interview. Schifano, Di Furia, Forza, Minicuci, and
Bricolo (1998) investigated multiple drug use over the entire lifetime.
In this article, we have used the words multiple drug use to mean use of two or
more drugs over a 12-month period of time. It is used in preference to polydrug
use, which tends to be associated with treatment diagnoses and is sometimes used
to refer to the use of subsidiary drugs in addition to prescription drugs. It is also
used in preference to simultaneous drug use, as the article aims to investigate drug
use and criminal behavior over the same time period and over longer periods of
time.

MULTIPLE DRUG USE AND CRIME

RESEARCH ON MULTIPLE DRUG USE AND CRIME

The main research interest of this article is whether multiple drug use in gen-
eral and specific kinds of multiple drug use in particular are associated with crimi-
nal behavior. The research on this topic can be divided into three main groups: (a)
the prevalence of multiple drug use and crime, (b) the number of drug types used
and crime, and (c) combinations of drug types and crime. As noted in the intro-
duction, there is little research on the relationship between multiple drug use and
crime of any kind. However, there are some studies that have addressed these
issues.

Prevalence of multiple drug use and crime. Some studies have looked at the
prevalence of criminal behavior among multiple drug users from data derived
from general population surveys. Chaiken and Chaiken (1990) recalculated
Elliott, Huizinga, and Agetons (1984) data from the U.S. National Youth Survey
to show that crime commission rates per year were between 10 and 20 times
higher among multiple drug users (who used alcohol, marijuana, and other drugs
four or more times each) than among nonusers. Other studies have investigated
the various measures of criminal behavior among multiple drug users within
criminal populations. Some of the most detailed findings on multiple drug use and
crime have come from studies based on arrestee surveys. Smith and Polsenberg
66 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

(1992) found, in a study based on adult arrestee data for the District of Columbia,
that 81% of arrestees testing positive for two or more drugs had a prior criminal
record, compared with 71% of those who tested positive for one drug and 52% of
those who tested positive for no drugs. Makkai (2001) reported from a study of
arrestees in Australia that the odds of being charged with a property offence were
three times greater among those who tested positive for two or more drugs than
those who tested positive for one or no drugs.

Number of drug types used and crime. It is fairly rare for studies to report the
connection between a precise number of drug types used and measures of crime.
Smith and Polsenberg (1992) explored the relationship between number of posi-
tive tests for different drug types among a sample of arrestees and the average
number of prior arrests. They found that the average number of prior arrests
increased with the number of positive tests. Those who tested positive for no drug
type recorded an average of 1.95 prior arrests, those who tested positive for just
one drug type had an average of 2.75 prior arrests, and those who tested positive
for two or more drug types had an average of 4.64 prior arrests. Bennett (2000)
used data from the second developmental stage of the New English and Welsh
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (NEW-ADAM) program in the United King-
dom to explore the relationship between number of drug types used and self-
reported offending. Arrestees who used one drug type in the past 12 months
reported an average of 26 acquisitive offences during the past 12 months.
Arrestees who used two drug types reported an average of 95 offences, and those
who used three or more drug types reported an average of 176 offences.
Hammersley, Forsyth, and Lavelle (1990), however, found no association among
drug users in Scotland when they attempted to predict crime from drug use vari-
ables. They found that the number of drug types used ever was not a significant
predictor of any of the five types of crime under investigation.

Combinations of drug types used and crime. There is also little research on the
relationship between specific patterns of multiple drug use and crime. The avail-
able research to date has tended to focus on the effect of different combinations of
heroin, crack, and cocaine, plus subsidiary drugs, on crime. Shaw, Hser, Anglin,
and Boyle (1999) found, from among a sample of arrestees in Los Angeles, that
those who had used cocaine only or crack only in their lifetimes had lower preva-
lence rates of criminal activities (10% and 14%, respectively) than those who used
both cocaine and crack (16% among those who used cocaine first and 24% among
those who used crack first). Other research has confirmed the effect of heroin,
crack, and cocaine combining on crime. Sanchez, Johnson, and Israel (1985)
found among a sample of incarcerated females that those who used heroin and
cocaine in the past year had higher mean rates of drug and prostitution offences
than users of heroin only. Collins, Hubbard, and Rachal (1985) found, in a study
of entrants into publicly funded drug abuse treatment programs in six U.S. cities,
that daily users of both heroin and cocaine reported higher levels of illegal income
The Association Between Multiple Drug Misuse and Crime 67

in the past year than those who reported daily use of heroin only or cocaine only.
Bennett (2000), from arrestee research in the United Kingdom, confirmed this
finding showing that arrestees who reported both heroin use and cocaine and
crack use in the past 3 days had higher annual illegal incomes than those using
heroin without cocaine and crack or cocaine and crack without heroin.

THEORIES OF MULTIPLE DRUG USE AND CRIME

As mentioned earlier, there has been little discussion in the literature about the
links between multiple drug use and crime. Perhaps as a result of this, there has
been little attempt to develop theory relating to the link. However, a number of
generalized statements can be found in the literature concerning the connection
between multiple use and crime. There are also a number of plausible reasons that
can be purported that might explain the connection. The most common explana-
tions of the link between multiple drug use and crime are economic explanations,
psychopharmacological explanations, and lifestyle explanations.

Economic explanations. Economic theories of the association between drug

use and crime are based on the idea that greater involvement in drug use leads to
greater expenditure on drugs and greater involvement in acquisitive crime to pay
for these drugs. Some writers have made generalized statements about the rela-
tionship that include multiple drug use. Leri et al. (2003) argue that opioid users
who also use cocaine will have drug habits that are even more expensive, which, in
turn, might lead some individuals to engage in income-generating crime. They
also note that opioid addicts sometimes use amphetamines to sustain the activity
level needed to hustle the necessary funds to pay for their opioid habit. Chaiken
and Chaiken (1990) report that a large body of research shows that high-rate
offenders who commit predatory crimes are also likely to use many different
types of drugs. The main principle of economic theory is that regular drug use is
expensive and that some users will seek funds for their drug use from illegal
sources. This argument is usually made in relation to heroin addiction and the
costs of habitual drug use (Brochu, 2001). However, the theory can be applied to
any costly form of drug use. Users of multiple drugs (especially when two or more
of them are expensive drugs) may face additional financial pressures to commit
acquisitive crime.

Psychopharmacological explanations. Psychopharmacological explanations

are based on the idea that drugs can have a direct or indirect effect on behavior as
a result of their chemical properties. These explanations are typically directed
at drug use and violent crime and in most cases refer to the effects of individ-
ual drugs. However, some writers have discussed the interaction, protective, or
additive effects of multiple drugs on the nature or rate of criminal behavior.
Hammersley and Morrison (1987) believe that multiple drugs used simulta-
neously may increase intoxication. One reason for this is that drug combinations
68 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

might create unique metabolites that are absent when the drugs are used individu-
ally. These metabolites may have greater toxicity than those formed when the
drugs are used individually. Pennings et al. (2002) argue that there has been much
theorizing about the possible mechanism by which the alcohol and cocaine com-
bination might lead to greater violence than from either drug alone. These include
the idea that alcohol and cocaine each elevate extraneuronal dopamine and seroto-
nin levels, which may lead to deficits in impulse control and to violent behavior.

Lifestyle explanations. Lifestyle explanations are sometimes referred to as sys-

temic explanations in that crime is seen as an intrinsic (or systemic) part of the
drug-using lifestyle. Lifestyle explanations are also sometimes referred to as
spuriousness explanations in that there may be no direct causal connection be-
tween drug use (including multiple drug use) and crime. Instead, they both co-
exist within the same lifestyle context. Leri et al. (2003), for example, noted that
addicts may use a wide range of drugs as part of more general deviant lifestyle that
includes both drug use and crime. The lifestyle perspective rejects the view that
drug use can be seen as a cause of crime or that crime can be seen as the cause of
drug use. However, some writers conceive of lifestyles as a common cause that
explains both drug use and crime. Walters (1998) argues that lifestyles evolve out
of predisposing factors, initiating factors, and maintenance factors. The maintain-
ing factors help reinforce and escalate forms of behavior. In the case of drugs and
crime, common maintaining factors encourage the convergence and reinforce-
ment of both drug using and criminal lifestyles.

AIM

The main research question discussed in this article is whether there is a con-
nection between multiple drug use and criminal behavior. In particular, the re-
search aims to investigate whether there is an association between the number of
drug types used or the specific combination of drug types used and involvement in
crime.

METHOD

The analysis of multiple drug use is based on data collected as part of the New
English and Welsh Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (NEW-ADAM) program
over the period from May 2000 to March 2002. During this time, surveys were
conducted in 16 custody suites in 13 police force areas in England and Wales. The
surveys were based on arrestees currently held for official processing (usually in
relation to a suspected offence). Further details of the research methods can be
found in Bennett, Holloway, and Williams (2003).
The Association Between Multiple Drug Misuse and Crime 69

TABLE 1
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ARRESTEE SAMPLE

Frequency Percentage

Sex
Male 2,682 86
Female 453 14
Age group
17 to 24 1,547 49
25 and older 1,588 51
Racea
White 2,479 79
NonWhite 655 21
Marital status
Single (never married) 2,145 68
Other 990 32
Employment statusa
Unemployed 1,461 47
Other 1,666 53
Total arrestees 3,135 100
a. Some cases are missing.

A total of 9,499 arrestees were processed through the 16 custody suites during
the 30-day periods covered by the research. About 60% of these (5,628) were
deemed eligible for interview. Approximately 64% of eligible arrestees (3,618)
were approached for interview. Eighty-seven percent of arrestees approached
(3,135) were actually interviewed. The majority of arrestees were male (86%) and
age 25 or older (51%). Further details of the sample characteristics are shown in
Table 1.
The main method of data collection relevant to the current discussion was a
structured questionnaire. The questionnaire included questions on the use of 19
illicit drug types and offending behavior in relation to 10 types of acquisitive
crime. The drug types included heroin, crack and cocaine, and a range of other
Class A, B, and C drugs, including cannabis, amphetamines, ecstasy, diazepam,
and temazepam. The offence types included vehicle crime, shoplifting, burglary,
robbery, theft person, handling, fraud, and drug supply offences. The choice of
acquisitive crimes rather than all crimes reflected the interest of the NEW-ADAM
research and the government body that funded the research at the time. Although
it was acknowledged that their might be a connection between drug use and vio-
lent crime (especially in relation to drug markets), the main research and policy
interest was the connection between drug use and the more common income-
generating crimes. Arrestees were asked about drug use during their lifetime, in
70 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

the past 12 months, in the past 30 days, and in the past 3 days. They were asked
about their offending behavior during their lifetime and in the past 12 months.
The following analysis is based on drug use and offending behavior in the past
12 months. This was chosen because the respondents were asked about both drug
use and criminal behavior over this period. It was also chosen as 12 months be-
cause it is a period of time often used in the literature for investigating multiple
drug use.
There has been some research on the validity of self-report methods based on
interviews with arrestees. A study conducted by McGregor and Makkai (2003), as
part of the Drug Use Monitoring in Australia program, investigated the con-
nection between urinalysis and self-report measures of drug misuse. The authors
found that arrestees tended to report accurately nonuse but tended to underreport
use. Among arrestees who tested negative for heroin, 98% denied heroin use in
the past 2 to 3 days. Among arrestees who tested positive for heroin, 68% reported
heroin use in the past 2 to 3 days. Hence, there is a possibility that the current re-
search might underestimate serious drug use among the sample and might under-
estimate, therefore, the extent of the connection between multiple drug use and
crime. This possibility would have to be taken into account when evaluating the
findings. There has been no research to our knowledge on the validity of self-
reported offending among arrestees.

FINDINGS

The results have been divided into the three main methods of investigating the
relationship between multiple drug use and crime: (a) the relationship between
the prevalence of multiple drug use and crime, (b) the relationship between the
number of drug types used and crime, and (c) the relationship between types of
drug use combinations and crime.

PREVALENCE OF MULTIPLE DRUG USE AND CRIME

The association between the prevalence of multiple drug use and both the prev-
alence and rate of offending is shown in Table 2.
The table shows that there is a significant difference in the proportion of multi-
ple drug users and nonmultiple drug users who reported acquisitive offending
in the past 12 months. About one third of single drug users compared with two
thirds of multiple drug users said that they had committed one or more acquisitive
crimes in the past 12 months. There is also a significant difference in the mean
number of offences reported among multiple and nonmultiple drug users. Multi-
ple drug users reported on average twice as many offences as single drug users
over the past 12 months. Hence, the results show a statistical association between
multiple drug use and acquisitive crime both in terms of the proportion of drug
users who offended and the mean rate of offending.
 TABLE 2
PERCENTAGE OF OFFENDERS AND MEAN NUMBER OF OFFENCES
BY TYPE OF DRUG USE IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

Column A: Significance of Column B: Significance of Column C:

Multiple Drug Users Column A Nonmultiple Drug Users Column B Nondrug users
(Two or More Drug Types) and Column B (One Drug Type) and Column C (No drug types)

Percentage of all arrestees who

committed one or more
acquisitive crimes in the
past 12 months (n) 69 (1,275) .000*** 38 (221) .000*** 16 (109)
Mean number of acquisitive crimes
committed in the past 12 months
among arrestees who had
committed one or more offences (n) 218.44 (1,272) .000*** 97.85 (219) .692 87.14 (108)
NOTE: Significance was calculated using Chi squared test or ANOVA.
***p < .001.

71
72 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

TABLE 3
MEAN NUMBER OF OFFENCES BY NUMBER OF DRUG TYPES
USED IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

Number of Mean Number Number Percentage Standard

Drug Types of Offences of Cases of Cases Deviation

0 13.6 691 22.3 96

1 36.4 588 19.0 148
2 47.7 329 10.6 154
3 95.4 329 10.6 218
4 133.0 255 8.2 257
5 128.2 247 8.0 227
6 206.2 202 6.5 301
7 225.3 147 4.8 290
8 222.1 130 4.2 293
9 293.1 81 2.6 314
10 268.9 57 1.8 345
11 306.1 38 1.2 333
Total 3,094 100.0

NUMBER OF DRUG TYPES USED AND CRIME

The method of grouping drug use or criminal behavior into dichotomized vari-
ables is useful in summarizing findings, but it loses important information about
the details of the relationship. The association between multiple drug use and
crime can be revealed more fully by examining variations in the number of
offences committed and the number of drug types used over the same period of
time.
The results show that about one fifth of arrestees reported that they consumed
no drugs, one fifth used just one drug type, one fifth used two or three drug types,
and two fifths used four or more drug types (Table 3). The mean number of re-
ported offences was 14 among nonusers, compared with 36 among users of one
drug type, 128 among users of five drug types, and 306 among users of 11 drug
types. The number of drug users reporting 12 or more drug types in the past year
was too small to provide reliable means scores, and they have been excluded from
this analysis.
The relationship is presented as a line graph in Figure 1. The figure shows a
positive correlation between number of drug types consumed and number of
offences committed (Pearson correlation of the individual-level data = .37).
Hence, these results suggest a statistical association between multiple drug use
and rates of offending. In this case, the results show that the association exists
across a range of values and not just across specific groupings of values (e.g., sin-
gle drug users versus multiple drug users).
The Association Between Multiple Drug Misuse and Crime 73

350

300

250
Number of offenses

200

150

100

50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of drug types

Figure 1 Mean Number of Offences by Mean Number of Drug Types Used in the Past 12
Months

COMBINATION OF DRUG TYPES USED AND CRIME

Perhaps the most revealing way of looking at the relationship between multiple
drug use and crime is through the particular combination of drug types used.
There are a number of ways of identifying and investigating drug type combina-
tions. One method is to base the analysis on all combinations of all drugs found in
the data. This is feasible with a small number of drug types. However, it becomes
less feasible as the number of drug types increases. This was particularly prob-
lematic in the current study, which was based on 19 drug types. The main problem
is that as the number of cells increases, the sample size per cell decreases. Another
method is to combine the drug types into a small number of categories and to base
the analysis on combinations of all drug groups found in the data. This would have
the advantage that the number of groups would be small. However, it has the dis-
advantage of losing information as a result of grouping drug types. A third
method (and the method preferred here) is to conduct a cluster analysis. This has
an advantage in that the number of clusters can be kept small, while keeping the
number of cases per cluster sufficiently high to conduct statistical analyses.
The cluster analysis described below was conducted for recreational drug
users only and for heroin, crack, and cocaine users. The first stage involved using
hierarchical cluster analysis to determine the initial cluster means for the K-
means analysis. This was done separately for users of drug combinations that did
not include heroin, crack, or cocaine (the recreational drug [RD] sample) and for
users of drug combinations that did include heroin, crack, and cocaine (the heroin,
crack, and cocaine [HCC] sample). The analysis was conducted on a random 25%
sample of the main dataset to generate a sample size close to that recommended
74 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

for this method. In each analysis, five clusters were requested. This number was
chosen to strike a balance between a large enough number of groups to provide
sufficient differentiation and a small enough number to ensure that the differences
were interpretable. Our main aim was to identify a small number of interpretable
groups that varied for the purpose of our analysis. It was not our aim to identify a
definitive grouping of drug use types.
A K-means cluster analysis was then conducted on the full dataset. The cluster
means generated from the hierarchical analysis were used as the initial cluster
means. In each analysis, five clusters were specified. This procedure was con-
ducted separately for the RD sample and for the HCC sample.
The results of the two sets of analyses are shown in Table 4. The RD analysis
generated one cluster with one dominant drug (cannabis), two clusters with two
dominant drugs (cannabis plus amphetamine and cannabis plus ecstasy), and two
clusters with three dominant drugs (cannabis plus diazepam plus temazepam and
cannabis plus ecstasy plus amyl nitrite). The HCC analysis generated (when look-
ing just at heroin, crack, and cocaine) two clusters of one HCC drug type (cocaine
only and heroin only), two clusters of two HCC drug types (both heroin and
crack), and one cluster of three HCC drug types (heroin, crack, and cocaine). Each
HCC cluster included additional drug types.
The analysis of the association between drug-type cluster and rate of offending
shows no significant difference when looking at the RD clusters. However, there
were significant differences in the mean number of offences committed across the
HCC clusters (see Table 5). The highest offending rates occurred among users of
heroin and crack when combined with heroin substitutes, recreational drugs, and
tranquillizers. The lowest offending rates were found among users of cocaine
who used no other drugs apart from recreational drugs. These findings suggest
that the particular drug-type combination is important. The knowledge that a user
consumed cocaine in the past 12 months provides only a limited insight into their
offending rates. Cocaine users (i.e., powder cocaine users) who consumed only
recreational drugs had an offending rate (M = 93 offences), whereas cocaine users
who also consumed heroin, crack, and a range of other drug types had an offend-
ing rate twice that number (M = 239 offences).

DISCUSSION

SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The study has shown a correlation between number of drug types used and rate
of offending. Almost twice as many multiple drug users as single drug users
reported offending in the previous 12 months. Multiple drug users who offended
reported on average twice as many offences as single drug users who offended.
Multiple drug users who used a large number of drug types reported committing a
greater number of offences than multiple drug users who used a small number of
 TABLE 4
DRUG USE CLUSTER BY PERCENTAGE OF MEMBERS USING SELECTED RECREATIONAL AND HCC DRUGS
IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

Cannabis Amphetamines Ecstasy Amyl Nitrite Diazepam Temazepam

Cluster n (CA) (AM) (EC) (AMY) (DI) (TE) Summary Notation

RD1 77 62 5 12 10 70 56 CA+DI+TE
RD2 508 100 0 0 0 0 0 CA
RD3 77 92 42 56 100 10 18 CA+EC+AMY
RD4 74 65 100 0 4 1 4 CA+AM
RD5 183 89 36 100 0 8 7 CA+EC

Heroin, Crack, and Cocaine Heroin Substitutes Recreational Drugs Tranquillizers

(HE, CR, CO) (HS) (RD) (TR)

Cluster n Heroin Crack Cocaine Methadone Df118s Cannabis Amphetamines Ecstasy Diazepam Temazepam Summary Notation

HCC1 351 100 88 31 61 75 82 8 8 91 76 (HE+CR)+HS+RD+TR

HCC2 261 89 85 78 51 71 92 69 87 86 75 (HE+CR+CO)+HS+RD+TR
HCC3 273 100 44 16 39 56 74 15 16 12 5 (HE)+HS+RD
HCC4 378 3 16 100 1 2 87 35 66 9 8 (CO)+RD
HCC5 246 60 100 30 5 1 86 16 30 11 8 (HE+CR)+RD

NOTE: HCC = heroin, crack, or cocaine; RD = recreational drugs; CO = cocaine; HE = heroin; CR = crack; HS = herion substrate. All figures, except those in the first and
last column, are given in percentages. This table includes percentages for all drugs comprising 50% or more of at least one cluster. Drug types not comprising this percent-
age of at least one cluster have been excluded. Heroin substitutes comprise one or more of the following: methadone, diconal, df118s, barbiturates, and temgesic. Recre-
ational drugs comprise one or more of the following: cannabis (CA), amphetamines (AM), ecstasy (EC), LSD, magic mushrooms, amyl nitrite (AMY), and solvents. Tran-
quilizers (TR) comprise one or more of the following: temazepam (TE), diazepam (DI), and other tranquilizers.

75
76 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

TABLE 5
MEAN NUMBER OF OFFENCES AND MEAN NUMBER OF DRUG TYPES
IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS BY DRUG TYPE CLUSTER

Mean Mean Number

Cluster Summary Notation Offending Rate of Drug Types

RD2 CA 28.84 1.06

RD3 CA+EC+AMY 34.81 3.77
RD5 CA+EC 42.86 2.66
RD1 CA+DI+TE 44.22 2.82
RD4 CA+AM 60.88 1.89
Total All 36.00 1.82
Significancea ns p < .000
HCC4 (CO)+RD 92.67 3.71
HCC5 (HE+CR)+RD 134.62 3.70
HCC3 (HE)+HS+RD 154.32 4.00
HCC2 (HE+CR+CO)+HS+RD+TR 239.48 9.04
HCC1 (HE+CR)+HS+RD+TR 265.16 6.84
Total All 176.18 5.41
Significancea p < .000 p < .000
NOTE: CA = cannabis; EC = ecstasy; AMY = amyl nitrite; DI = diazepam; TE = temazepam; AM =
amphetamines; CO = cocaine; RD = recreational drugs; HE = heroin; CR = crack; HS = heroin substi-
tutes; TR = tranquilizers.
a. Significance was calculated using ANOVA.

drug types. Multiple drug users who included heroin, crack, and cocaine in their
drug combinations committed a greater number of offences on average than mul-
tiple drug users who used only recreational drugs. Multiple drug users who used
heroin and crack and who also used heroin substitutes, recreational drugs, and
tranquilizers had higher offending rates than multiple drug users who used heroin
and crack without these additional drug types.

EXPLAINING THE CONNECTION

There are at least three broad explanations for a relationship between multiple
drug use and crime: (a) Multiple drug use causes high rates of offending, (b) high
rates of offending cause multiple drug use, and (c) the relationship is spurious
(there is no causal connection).

Multiple drug use causes high rates of offending. There are at least two possi-
ble explanations based on the view that multiple drug use causes high rates of
crime.
The first is the economic argument that greater involvement in drug use leads
to greater involvement in acquisitive crime as a means of financing drug use. This
The Association Between Multiple Drug Misuse and Crime 77

argument was discussed earlier and has been used in the literature to explain the
general relationship between both drug use and crime and multiple drug use and
crime. One explanation is that multiple drug use leads to high-offending rates
simply because a greater number of drug types cost more to finance than a smaller
number of drug types. Users might have limited legitimate sources of income and
may resort to illegal means to finance the shortfall. Another explanation is that
multiple drug use leads to high-offending rates because multiple drug users are
more likely to include use of the more expensive drugs, such as heroin, crack, and
cocaine, which again places pressure on them to offend to raise funds for drugs. A
third explanation, which combines the previous two explanations, is that the most
heavily involved multiple drug users are likely to experience a funding shortfall
from both the use of more expensive drug types and the range of other supporting
drugs used (such as heroin or crack substitutes).
The second is the psychopharmacological argument that multiple drug use can
lead to high rates of offending because of the effects of certain types of drugs or
certain types of drug interactions. Multiple drug users are more likely than single
drug users to be at risk of using these criminogenic drug types or drug type combi-
nations. As mentioned earlier, the research on the psychopharmacology of the
drugs-crime connection tends to be based on violence and the links between mul-
tiple drug use and violent crime. However, it can be argued that the addictive prop-
erties of certain drug types can lead to greater drug use and greater offending to
finance the drug use. It can also be argued that certain drug combinations might
moderate or enhance the compulsive effects of addictive drug use, which might in
turn moderate or enhance offending behavior.

High rates of offending cause multiple drug use. Another explanation given for
the drugs-crime connection is the idea that crime might cause drug use. It has been
argued that drugs might be one of the items that are purchased from the proceeds
of crime. This explanation has sometimes been described as the life as a party or
hedonistic pursuits explanation (Wright & Decker, 1994). Offenders might find
that they have surplus funds following a successful crime spree and might choose
to use these funds to finance pleasurable pursuits. This argument might also be
used to explain the multiple drug use connection with crime. High-rate offenders
might achieve high levels of illegal funds, which might in turn finance high levels
of drug use, including multiple drug use.

The relationship is spurious (there is no causal connection). There are two

explanations that argue that the links between drug use and crime (which might be
applicable to multiple drug use and crime) are not directly causal.
The first is the common cause explanation that argues that the drug use and
crime are linked by a third or common variable. It is possible that various disposi-
tional factors linked to early development or recent history (e.g., family absence
or family breakdown) might predispose certain individuals to high levels of in-
volvement in both drug use and crime.
78 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

The second is sometimes described as the lifestyles explanation and argues

that many forms of behavior, including excessive and problem behavior, are a sys-
temic part of the broader lifestyle. It cannot be argued that any one of these prob-
lem behaviors causes the other. In the case of multiple drug use and crime, it could
be argued that excessive offending and excessive drug use simply coexist in a
broader framework of problem behavior.
Strictly speaking, it is not possible to use the research findings to support or
reject these explanations as they are based largely on mechanisms that are beyond
the scope of the current research to investigate. The economic argument, for
example, requires knowledge about the motivation to offend, and the hedonistic
pursuits argument requires knowledge about consumption choices. However, it is
possible to make some attempt at comparing the results and the explanations.

RESEARCH SUPPORT
The research findings are broadly consistent with the economic argument.
However, they offer slightly stronger support for the third version of the argument
(in the sense that the results are more consistent with the theory) than the first or
second version.
The first version (a large number of drug types costs more to finance than a
small number) is based on the principle that multiple drug use would lead to
higher offending rates regardless of the types of drugs consumed. However, the
research shows that multiple drug use involving certain combinations of drugs is
associated with higher levels of offending than multiple drug use involving other
combinations of drugs. Hence, the type of drugs consumed appears to be impor-
tant in the explanation. The second version (multiple drug users are more likely to
use expensive drugs) is based on the view that multiple drug use leads to higher
offending rates because users consume expensive drug types, such as heroin,
crack, and cocaine. The research offers some support for this explanation in that it
shows that the use of drug combinations involving heroin, crack, and cocaine are
associated with higher offending rates than use of combinations based on recre-
ational drugs only. However, the results are most consistent with the third eco-
nomic explanation that argues that the total number of drug types used and the
inclusion of heroin, crack, or cocaine in the drug type combinations are both
important in explaining offending rates. The research shows that multiple drug
users who use heroin, crack, and cocaine and a large number of other drug types
have higher offending rates than those who use heroin, crack, and cocaine and a
small number of other drug types.
The research findings are less consistent with the hedonistic pursuits explana-
tion that argues that high offending rates cause multiple drug use. It is difficult to
see why high-rate offenders would adopt the drug use patterns shown solely as a
result of a desire for hedonistic pursuits following a successful crime spree. The
pattern of multiple drugs for the higher offending rate groups is fairly specific and
includes heroin, crack, and cocaine as well as a range of heroin substitutes and
The Association Between Multiple Drug Misuse and Crime 79

support drugs. This pattern of drug use is more typical of someone with a substan-
tial drug habit rather than someone who wants to have a party. However, the
research offers only indirect insight into the mechanisms that link multiple drug
misuse and crime, and hedonistic explanations cannot be ruled out.
The research offers slightly more support for the lifestyles explanation and the
idea that multiple drug use and crime are not causally linked but are both systemic
to a certain kind of problematic lifestyle. The research shows that multiple drug
users who are excessive in terms of the number of drug types they consume are
also excessive in terms of the number of offences they commit. Multiple drug
users who commit the greatest number of offences are also those who include in
their repertoire of drugs the greatest number and most serious drugs. However, the
research cannot comment on whether the coexistence is causal or spurious.
Overall, the strongest conclusions that can be drawn from the current research
(bearing in mind its limitations) is that the research findings are consistent with
the causal explanation that the connection between multiple drug use and high
rates of criminal behavior is the product of users consuming a large number of
expensive drug types and the noncausal explanation that the connection is the
product of overlapping problematic and excessive lifestyles. However, the re-
search findings cannot rule out the possibility that other explanations might also
play a part. It is possible, for example, that different types of explanations might
apply to different types of individuals or to different times in relation to the same
individual.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The connection between multiple drug use and crime is relevant to policy on
drugs and crime. First, drugs strategies aimed at reducing drug-related crime typi-
cally focus on users of heroin and crack without taking into account use of other
drugs. However, the results of the current research have shown that heroin and
crack use is not universally associated with high rates of offending. Heroin or
crack users who use few other drugs (according to our results) are likely to have
lower offending rates than those who use many other drugs. Further, even among
heroin and crack users who are multiple drug users, there are likely to be varia-
tions in their offending rates depending on the particular multiple drug type com-
bination. Heroin and crack users who use only recreational drugs committed
offences at about half the rate of heroin and crack users who used heroin substi-
tutes, recreational drugs, and tranquilizers. Hence, the nature of multiple drug use
(in particular the nature of other drugs used by heroin and crack users) might be
useful in guiding intervention strategy.
Second, knowledge about multiple drug use is relevant to treatment services
provided as part of an antidrug strategy. Heroin users who also use crack might
require a different treatment approach than heroin users who use only heroin.
Similarly, heroin users who use many other drug types might require a different
approach from those who use just a few. In many countries, (notably the United
80 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

Kingdom and the United States) treatment services have grown up around the
treatment of heroin addiction. Knowledge about the treatment of cocaine and
crack addiction and multiple drug dependency is less well developed.
Future research might develop further the concept of multiple drug use and
investigate further its value in explaining criminal behavior. The results of this
research might help inform national drug prevention strategies and help direct
treatment provision and services.

REFERENCES

Bennett, T. H. (2000). Drugs and crime: The results of the second developmental stage of the NEW-
ADAM programme (Home Office Research Study No. 205). London: Home Office.
Bennett, T. H., Holloway, K., & Williams, T. (2003). Drug use and offending: Summary results of
the first two years of the NEW-ADAM programme (Research Findings No. 179). London: Home
Office.
Best, D., Sidwell, C., Gossop, M., Harris, J., & Strang, J. (2001). Crime and expenditure amongst
polydrug misusers seeking treatment. British Journal of Criminology, 41, 119-126.
Brochu, S. (2001). The relationship between drugs and crime. Qubec, Canada: Universit de
Montral. Retrieved September 20, 2003, from http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/
senate/Com-e/ille-e/presentation-e/brochu-e.htm
Chaiken, J. M., & Chaiken, M. R. (1990). Drugs and predatory crime. In M. Tonry & J. Q. Wilson
(Eds.), Drugs and crime (pp. 203-239). London: University of Chicago Press.
Collins, J., Hubbard, R., & Rachal, J. (1985). Expensive drug use and illegal income: A test of explana-
tory hypotheses. Criminology, 23, 743-764.
Darke, S., & Hall, W. (1995). Levels and correlates of polydrug use among heroin users and regular
amphetamine users. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 39, 231-235.
Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1984). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Fountain, J., Griffiths, P., Farrell, M., Gossop, M., & Strang, J. (1999). Benzodiazepines in polydrug-
using repertoires: The impact of the decreased availability of temazepam gel-filled capsules.
Drugs-Education Prevention and Policy, 6, 61-69.
Hammersley, R., Forsyth, A., & Lavelle, T. (1990). The criminality of new drug users in Glasgow. Brit-
ish Journal of Addiction, 85, 1583-1594.
Hammersley, R., & Morrison, V. (1987). Effects of polydrug use on the criminal activities of heroin-
users. British Journal of Addiction, 82, 899-906.
Leri, F., Bruneau, J., & Stewart, J. (2003). Understanding polydrug use: Review of heroin and cocaine
co-use. Addiction, 98, 7-22.
Makkai, T. (2001). Patterns of recent drug use among a sample of Australian detainees. Addiction, 96,
1799-1808.
McGregor, K., & Makkai, T. (2003). Self-reported drug use: How prevalent is underreporting? Trends
and Issues in Criminal Justice, 260, 1-6.
Pennings, J. M., Leccese, A. P., & De Wolff, F.A. (2002). Effects of concurrent use of alcohol and
cocaine. Addiction, 97, 773-783.
Sanchez, J. E., Johnson, B. D., & Israel, M. (1985). Drugs and crime among Rikers Island women. Pa-
per presented at the Annual Conference of the American Society of Criminology, San Diego, CA.
Schifano, F., Di Furia, L., Forza, G., Minicuci, N., & Bricolo, R. (1998). MDMA (ecstasy) consump-
tion in the context of polydrug abuse: A report on 150 patients. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 52,
58-90.
The Association Between Multiple Drug Misuse and Crime 81

Shaw, V. N., Hser, Y., Anglin, D. M., & Boyle, K. (1999). Sequences of powder cocaine and crack use
among arrestees in Los Angeles county. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 25, 47-66.
Simpson, D. D., & Sells, S. B. (1974). Patterns of multiple drug abuse: 1969-1971. The International
Journal of the Addictions, 9, 301-314.
Smith, D. A., & Polsenberg, C. (1992). Specifying the relationship between arrestee drug test results
and recidivism. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 83, 364-377.
Walters, G. D. (1998). Changing lives of crime and drugs: Intervening with substance abusing offend-
ers. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Wilkinson, D. A., Leigh, G. M., Cordingley, J., Martin, G. W., & Lei, H. (1987). Dimensions of multi-
ple drug use and a typology of drug users. British Journal of Addiction, 82, 259-273.
Wright, R. T., & Decker, S. H. (1994) Burglars on the job: Street life and residential break-ins. Boston:
Northeastern University Press.

Trevor Bennett, Ph.D.

Director
Centre for Criminology
University of Glamorgan
Pontypridd, CF37 1DL
United Kingdom

Katy Holloway, Ph.D.

Research Fellow
Centre for Criminology
University of Glamorgan
Pontypridd, CF37 1DL
United Kingdom