Chaiken and Chaiken (1990) suggest that both drug use and predatory criminal behavior usually occur in early puberty and are products of similar external factors. Fagan et al. (1990) concluded that these external factors are usually either “destructive factors in the environment” such as physical abuse, or the “absence of traditional social control,” such as positive rewards for education (p. 212). Chaiken and Chaiken also refer to a study they published in 1982, which analyzed survey responses of male prisoners and concluded that drug use may be one of a variety of behaviors that are associated with the anti-social lifestyle of predatory (instrumental and gainful crimes) offenders, along with irregular employment and lack of marital ties.

McBride and McCoy (1993) develop a theory that suggest that “drugs and crime occur together because they share a similar set of causal variables and are part of the same sub-cultural value and role system” (p. 272). They describe the conclusions of ethnographers of street-drug/crime cultures as “the sub-cultural values that emerge in street-drug-using cultures encompass crime as a means to obtain drugs and as a cultural value itself in opposition to the straight world of legitimate low-paying jobs” (p. 269). Brochu et al. (1995) concluded their report by stating that our “…results seem to indicate that, for juveniles in reeducation centers, there is no causal link between the alcohol/drug use and crime, but rather that the consumption of alcohol at an early age and the use of drugs, as well as the commission of delinquent acts, are both concomitant manifestations of an involvement in a deviant life style.”

Brunelle et al. (2000) compared institutionalized youth to non-institutionalized youth and found that the non-institutionalized youth had committed less serious crimes with less frequency, and they consumed a smaller variety of drugs to a lesser degree. These youth also reported that they felt they would lose a lot if they were caught in either behavior and they had stronger bonds to family and commitment to school. In contrast, the institutionalized youth indicated, “that they had nothing to lose by getting involved in crime or drugs” (p. 853). This could be interpreted as verifying a common etiology for both behaviors: a lack of positive reinforcements for more pro-social behaviors stemming from a lack of bonds to pro-social supports of family and friends. In the same study it was noted that many respondents reported using drugs and committing crimes in the pursuit of pleasure. Again, it can be suggested that a hedonistic lifestyle can be an independent variable associated with the occurrence of both drug use and crime simultaneously. It can also be suggested that this lifestyle can be the result of a lack of emotional bonds and positive reinforcements for the pursuit of other life goals.

In a study comparing non-criminal males who were in addictions treatment to male offenders who were also receiving treatment, Brochu et al. (1998) found that the offenders being treated were younger, less integrated to the pro-social world, reported more anti-social behaviors and less mental health problems than the non-offenders. This again indicates that substance abusers that commit crimes are significantly different from non-offending substance abusers. In other words, substance abuse does not lead to crime for everyone. This further calls into question the assumption that drugs cause crime.

Although there is little research of this conducted with women prisoners, the available data indicates similar findings. In a 1995 study, Biron et al. examined drug use and its relation to crime in 94 female provincial and federal inmates in Quebec. They concluded that the women’s “economic situation and family responsibilities…usually put them in a very disadvantaged socioeconomic position. Because they have few opportunities for legitimate wage earning, drugs and offending seem to offer a way out in terms of escaping a difficult situation and gaining easy access to money” (p. 40).

There appears to be much evidence that suggest that substance abuse and crime result from similar causes and, therefore, are likely to occur together in a number of individuals. They are both also part of a lifestyle that is often developed in response to, or to cope with, lack of ties to “pro-social” elements of society. This may help explain why programs that target pro-criminal beliefs and attitudes, peer support for criminal behavior and anti-social personality characteristics have a documented higher success rate in reducing recidivism that do programs that target substance abuse.