A Tripartite Model Examination of the Link Between Substance Use and Crime in Canada

To further the thesis that the assumed causal link between drugs and crime has led to policies that have not achieved their intended goals, this article will examine the findings of two recent Canadian studies applying Goldstein’s (1985) tripartite conceptual framework to exploring the link of drugs to violent crime. Brunelle et al. (2000) applied this model to a study of youth in drug treatment and young offenders in re-education centers in Quebec, and Casavant and Collins (2001) applied the Goldstein model in their review of the drug use and crime relationship. Goldstein’s model puts forth three ways that drugs and violent crime are linked:

1. The psychopharmacological link: This says that the intoxicating effects of drugs and alcohol cause criminal behavior.
2. The economic-compulsive link: This suggests that a dependency on expensive drugs often leads to criminal acts committed to obtain money to buy the drug.
3. The systemic violence link: This proposes that “violence is an integral part of the illegal drug distribution market…and exists mainly because the drug market affords no legal way of obtaining justice when rules are violated” (Casavant and Collins 2001, p.15).

The Psychopharmacological Link. Brunelle et al. (2000) concluded that the psychopharmacological link “…most present in the youth’s accounts is the use of drugs to facilitate the commission of crime by enhancing courage or reducing nervousness. The decision to commit violent acts was made before consuming drugs in many of these cases.” Casavant and Collins (2001) conclude that while intoxication is often cited as a reason for committing a crime, “…evidence supporting this model is limited. The few empirical elements are drawn from research which present numerous methodological problems…and many recent studies have challenged the notion that psychoactive drugs stimulate violent behavior in any systematic way” (p. 8).

The strongest psychopharmacological link appears to be between alcohol and violence. Pernanen et al. (2002) report that 24% of federal inmates said they were under the influence of alcohol at the time of their most serious offence, while 16% stated they were under the influence of drugs and 14% were intoxicated by both drugs and alcohol. Of those that committed homicide, 33.9% reported alcohol intoxication at the time of the crime, while 7% reported being under the influence of only drugs. In a 1999 study, Brochu et al. concluded: “There was a rather clear distinction between acquisatory crimes and violent crimes in the prevalence of use of drugs and alcohol. While homicides and, more pronouncedly, assaults and wounding were predominately alcohol-related, crimes such as thefts and break and enter showed a higher prevalence of drug use on the day of the crime” (p. 9).

The conclusion to be drawn from this is that there is little evidence to suggest that being intoxicated by a substance will lead to committing a criminal act, and the strongest psychopharmacological link that can be made is with the use of alcohol. Has policy been effective in reducing this drug-crime link? It appears as though criminalizing drug use has had little impact on violent crime since alcohol is the substance with the strongest link to the most serious crimes.

The Economic-Compulsive Link. When examining the economic-compulsive link, Casavant and Collins (2001) point out this link is well supported by media reports, and by offenders themselves as a way of not accepting personal responsibility for an offence. They conclude, however, that it “largely disregards some research findings, including the fact that a number of drug users, even those who are dependant users, do not commit crimes…and many drug users got involved in crime before they used drugs” (p. 15).