Criminological theories relating to substance abuse and exposure to addictive substances vary considerably, as do cultural and state responses to drug use. While it is certainly not true that all problem drug users and people who drink alcohol excessively go on to commit crime, a strong correlation between substance abuse and criminal activity has been established. Richard Dembo et al have documented that among young offenders in particular, for instance:
Higher levels of involvement with substance use increase the rate of offending, the severity of the committed offence, and the duration of antisocial behaviour. Further, the earlier the age of onset of substance use, the greater the likelihood of severe and chronic offending (2007).
What is not at all clear is the nature of the relationship between crime and substance abuse, and namely whether substance abuse is a root cause of crime or yet another symptom of broader societal problems, commonly faced by offenders and problem drug users alike. In short, does substance abuse cause offending, or are people who are likely to offend also likely to abuse substances? Is substance abuse to be read as a crime, the causality of which needs to be analysed and understood, or as a cause of crime? Though various studies into this area have been made, writers like Dawn Moore continue to call their findings into question (2007).
To suit the purposes of this thesis, existing criminological theories of drug use must be addressed and analysed not only in terms of their validity but also with regard to their applicability to Yemen and other fragile states. It should be noted that the lack of definitive answers to these questions makes substance-abuse-based theories of crime causality fairly weak at explaining criminological environments. It is the author's belief that substance abuse complicates the motivations behind criminal activity and prolongs or increases its severity wherever relevant, but does not cause those motivations to manifest – that it is, like the presence of any criminogenic commodity, an aggravating risk factor or a contributor, but not a pure source of criminality. Nevertheless, while the relationship between substance abuse and offending has not been adequately explained, a positive correlation between the two is virtually indisputable.
In February 2010, the inmates of Hydebank Wood, a prison for women and young offenders in South Belfast (Northern Ireland), were asked by the author to complete an exploratory survey in which they were left to freely express their views as to the primary causes of crime103. The facility provided an interesting surveying ground, due both to Northern Ireland's status as a country recovering from conflict and to its relative stability, which allowed for comparatively easy access to its correctional facilities and showed minimal literacy levels among its inmates104. Copies of the survey were left in recreational facilities and inmates were given a choice as to whether or not to complete them. There was no deliberate sampling method used and the 56 respondents who
103 See section 1.6.2.
104 A number of the offenders had only basic reading and writing skills, and others were clearly unable to participate in the survey format.
143
completed the survey ranged from 15 to 45 years of age, and had been incarcerated for a multitude of different offences ranging from breach of probation to murder.
Figure 47 Causes of Crime and Offending, as Identified by the Inmates of Hydebank Wood
An overwhelming 64% of respondents identified substance abuse as the leading cause of crime, with some offenders sighting alcoholism and others either identifying “drugs” in general or naming specific substances such as cocaine (See Figure 47). Younger respondents aged under 25 years showed a much higher propensity to cite substance abuse as a leading cause of crime. Although the survey was not distributed to a sufficiently large sampling field to extrapolate real trends, the implications of these initial results are fairly serious. Firstly, they indicate a high rate of substance abuse among the offending population of South Belfast and a particularly high rate of substance abuse among young offenders. Secondly, they indicate that many offenders consider the effect of substance abuse to be strong enough to impact individual behaviour patterns, pushing people to either commit crime while under the influence of narcotics or to commit crime in order to pay for narcotics.
These findings, which are congruent with contemporary criminological theory, are common to multiple cultural contexts and are particularly relevant to countries affected by conflict and fragility. Such countries often either show high rates of narcotics production, as in the case of Afghanistan with its opium and heroin, Columbia with its cocaine, and Yemen with its qat; or experience a breakdown of their border control mechanisms, leading to the high influx of illegal narcotics, as has occurred in the cases of Iraq, Somalia and Tajikistan. When combined with the stresses of persistent social violence and the hazards of displacement, this high availability of potentially addictive substances leads to high rates of drug use among populations affected by state fragility, which consider drug use as either a relaxation tool or as a means of managing pain after physical or psychological trauma.
144
Children and young people, who are exposed to all types of social abuse in such contexts (especially where conflict is present), are particularly prone to start using substances early, being socially isolated through homelessness or displacement from those communities and families that would have otherwise attached for them an intense social stigma towards serious drug dependency. What is obscured by unifying theories of substance abuse in crime, is the degree to which substance abuse is influenced by broader socio-cultural perceptions of narcotics, with many Islamic societies heavily penalising narcotics users through social exclusion and “othering”. Here, the degree of penalisation seems to depend largely upon the substance consumed, with alcohol consumption representing both a criminal and moral transgression in some nations, and other narcotics, like qat, being seen as having virtually no detrimental impact on those who use them.
The term “substance abuse” refers to the use of both licit and illicit substances, including alcohol, solvents and inhalants, chemical and natural products, drugs and narcotics. In Yemen, qat is the most highly used of such substances and is a perfectly legal narcotic.
While the use of qat is itself not a criminal act, the plant is associated with criminal behaviour. Firstly, the mass production of qat leads to the illegal extraction of underground water reserves, greatly adding to the rate of depletion of Yemen's water table. Qat farming produces better yields if fields are flooded with water. Secondly, the transportation of qat across Yemen's borders and into places like Somalia and elsewhere is, if not directly illegal, accomplished through illegal means and smuggling roots, contributing to the black market and war economies of both countries. Thirdly, high rates of family dependency mean that between 7 and 9.4% of household budgets are spent upon the acquisition of qat, which sidelines budgeting for other necessary items like food and medicine, leading to increased offending among family members through necessity (Republic of Yemen et al, 2007, p. 43). Finally, mass qat production has virtually obliterated the production of food and other products in Yemen, rendering the predominantly agricultural country entirely dependent upon imports.
This reality has wreaked havoc upon Yemen's economy, contributing to the poverty and desperation of the general population and rendering the environment highly criminogenic. Unlike the Hydebank Wood inmates, however, Yemeni communities tend to be reluctant to acknowledge the negative social and medical impacts of qat, the chewing of which is a much more socially acceptable practice. While substance abuse clearly affects both criminogenic environments, it is perceived extremely differently in each context.
Qat is a class C drug or light psychoactive substance, though it is thought only to be mildly addictive if at all so. When dealing with class C narcotics specifically, the term “substance abuse” becomes a very difficult one to use, with many states, including Yemen, refusing to legislate against drug use due to apparent low rates of addiction, despite high rates of problem drug use. It is important to note here that words like “addiction” and “abuse” are loaded with political and diagnostic implications which seek to comment upon the mental health and well-being of the drug user. Elizabeth Connell Henderson writes that:
Addiction is a complicated condition, with biological, physiological, psychological, behavioural, and spiritual aspects. For this reason it is best to think of alcoholism and drug addiction as multifaceted disorders, only one of which is the compulsive use of the addicting substance. (2001, p. 3)
145
Accusing people of having such disorders can taint them with significant social stigmas, particularly in Islamic countries where heavy drug use and the use of class A or B drugs and alcohol can compromise religious and tribal doctrines. Although such terms will be utilised throughout this thesis in the absence of a politically neutral language, Kathleen M. Carroll and William R. Miller remind us quite rightly that the “names used to describe phenomena affect the ways in which one thinks about a problem and what to do about it” (2006, p. 5).
The Yemeni case study reveals that heavy drug use can be inherently linked to a country's culture and to that culture's rules on social interaction, much like alcohol consumption in Europe. Institutionalised substance abuse can create a highly criminogenic environment for young people by, for instance, restricting their ability to hold steady employment or to complete basic education programmes, with the Government of Yemen et al estimating that approximately 25% of its people's work hours are lost to qat (2007, p. 43). Such drug use does not necessarily call for the construction of narcotics rehabilitation centres, however it does clearly require some sort of intervention if the Yemeni economy is to be placed back on track and young offending to be minimised.
The prevalence of substance abuse among offenders greatly complicates the discussion of crime, and theories on this produced in the developed world are often insufficiently flexible to accommodate alternative cultural positions. As Tammy Anderson notes specifically of women drug users; substance abuse has traditionally been linked to “pathology and powerlessness”, so that “today's discussion about women substance abusers classifies them as either villains or victims” (2008, p. 1). The same is largely true of other problem drug users, with a general tendency among Western policy makers to view men as being more culpable and so-called “vulnerable” groups (which include people with mental health disorders and children under the age of seventeen) as being more innocent. This means that a large portion of young offenders are perceived in Europe and elsewhere as having diminished responsibility for their actions on two counts: on the one hand, as problem drug users that are victims of social circumstances and of their own dependence, and on the other hand, because the very influence of alcohol and other substances is known to remove social inhibitions.
Criminological theories of substance abuse take two distinct stances on the relationship between drugs and crime. They either adopt the position that substance addiction stretches limited financial resources so that drug users are tempted to look towards property offences (like theft) to support their habits (See Figure 48):
146
Or, that substance abuse inhibits the capacity of drug users to make rational decisions, or to cope with conflicts or complex challenges in a reasonable or a lawful way (See Figure 49).
Figure 49 Physiological/Psychological Explanations of Substance Abuse-Based Criminogenic Risk Factors
The two stances are not necessarily considered to be mutually exclusive. Herschel Prins explains that in the United Kingdom alone:
It is not uncommon in criminal cases, particularly those involving serious violence against persons or property, for a plea to be made by the accused that their liability should be diminished because of the effects of taking alcohol and/or other substances. (1995, p. 20) That it is comparatively rare for such pleas to be accepted does not change the validity of the argument: after all, those reported to be “under the influence” of certain substances are less in control of their actions than those who are not.
This position does not translate well to Islamic countries. In Yemen, the use of any mood- altering substance other than qat is considered a “morality crime” and such defences are not applicable, though the philosophy behind them is still worth thinking about. In this sense, Yemen can be said to fit an exaggerated version of David MacDonald's interpretation of Afghanistan, because it “holds up a mirror to the developed world and the anomalies and paradoxes inherent in its drug policies”, whereby “For the better part of a century international drug control has been dominated by a western model based on prohibition and the criminalisation of drugs and those who use them” (2007, pp. 12-13).
As Louise B. Antoine summarises, the discussion of substance abuse is complex, although: The global drug problem has three major themes, which are clearly discernible in most countries around the world: concern about young people and drugs; concern about addiction; and concern about the effects of the illegal production, trafficking, and selling of drugs. (2002, p. ix)
That it is not possible now to discuss substance abuse without considering these three themes more broadly speaks to the limitations of substance abuse-based theories of crime causation: problem drug use and particularly the use of illicit substances are symptomatic of a much wider challenge – namely, the proliferation of such substances among societies. The use of illegal substances implies a
147
certain level of crime within a given area, which allows for those substances to be produced, transported and sold to local communities. Setting aside the question of why young people and others use drugs from a psychological perspective, they are, above all, able to use them because such substances are readily available, despite stringent legislation. Furthermore, concerns about the exposure of young people to such substances coupled with concerns about the full effects and implications of addiction colour the discussion of substance abuse in general and the processing of offenders more specifically.
In certain fragile states, like Yemen, where substance abuse can also be read as a coping mechanism in a context of extreme violence and underdevelopment, and where mainstream drug use is a source of cultural identity not to be criminalised while other drug use is extremely stigmatised: the discussion becomes even more complex, leading to distinct concerns about the generalisation of criminological theory across multiple cultural contexts. In this context, theories on the relationship between substance abuse and criminality leave too many unanswered questions because “the behaviour of drug use is not isolated, but it is intimately intertwined with a range of common, long-standing human issues and societal problems” (Carroll and Miller, 2006, p. 6) which are probably quite heavily case-specific. It is virtually impossible to disentangle these issues from criminal behaviour that is discovered to have been motivated or influenced by addiction or substance abuse. Rather than looking at substance abuse as a cause of crime, it is more helpful to examine crime and substance abuse in parallel as symptoms of broader social, familial, school and labour-based risk factors, though this answer in itself is mildly unsatisfying.