To the extent that psychopharmacological connections exist (as, for instance, with crack cocaine), the relationship is reasonably straightforward. People consume crack cocaine, and they sometimes get nervous and violent and hurt others or themselves. Violence directed against others is generally termed criminal. (Joseph F. Sheley, James D. Wright, 1995). Though, not all drugs have violence-producing psychopharmacological effects. Certainly, the set and setting for drug taking may even contribute to a reduction in social violence.
In the 1960s, for instance, marijuana consumption in the United States and Western Europe was linked with subcultures that avoided violence, mainly the violence of the Vietnam War. Love and peace turned out to be symbols not merely of a drug subculture however of antiviolence. (Joseph F. Sheley, James D. Wright, 1995). In taking into account psychopharmacology and the criminality of violence directed toward others, one have to keep in mind that drug use and drug abuse produce overhead consequences for society that are light years apart.
(Kathleen Auerhahn, Robert Nash Parker, 1998) Occasional consumption of cocaine or crack by a small fragment of a country's population likely produces little widespread social harm. Drug abuse by a considerable portion of a country's population—mainly of cocaine or crack—cannot be viewed in such benign terms. (Kathleen Auerhahn, Robert Nash Parker, 1998) Concerning economic-compulsive relationships (people stealing so as to buy drugs), due to empirical evidence hardly anyone dares assert definitive causal connections except when crack is involved.
(Kathleen Auerhahn, Robert Nash Parker, 1998). Some observers conclude that drug taking does not source crime, mainly property crime, so much as it speeds up it, mostly among poor drug takers in countries whose criminal laws have driven up drug prices the most. "It's the high prices of drugs on the black market that create an incentive to property crime, writes Lana Harrison. " (Kathleen Auerhahn, Robert Nash Parker, 1998)
Consequently, there likely exists a false relationship between illicit-drug use and property crime in the sense that both are frequently related to other causes. But hardly anyone denies the accelerator effect of drugs on crime. (Benedikt Fischer, Louis Glicksman, Maritt Kirst, Wendy Medved, Jurgen Rehm, 2001). Some observers hold responsible society for "structural conditions" (e. g. , poverty) that push people into both crime and drugs or view that "deviant behaviors take place within the context of a general deviance syndrome".
(Benedikt Fischer, Louis Glicksman, Maritt Kirst, Wendy Medved, Jurgen Rehm, 2001). Be that as it may, drug use, mainly drug abuse in across-the-board prohibition countries, increases as well as sustains criminal behavior. Money and addiction make more money plus more drugs necessary. Inasmuch as prices are inclined to be highest in prohibition countries with the most stringent laws, more money and most likely more crime are required to service abuse or addiction there. (Benedikt Fischer, Louis Glicksman, Maritt Kirst, Wendy Medved, Jurgen Rehm, 2001).
Criminality associated with systemic violence shifts our concentration away from consumers to major, midsize, and even some small traffickers. There is a definite bravado associated with the way of life of major traffickers that makes systemic violence and violent risk taking an inherent part of the way they do business. (Benedikt Fischer, Louis Glicksman, Maritt Kirst, Wendy Medved, Jurgen Rehm, 2001). This behavior is associated to money and what major traffickers do with it.
Aside from engaging in obvious consumption, making sanitized business investments in normal economies, and developing modern service-based regional strongholds, major and midsize traffickers often penetrate and corrupt regional and national governments; make alliances with terrorist organizations or antistate groups; assassinate uncooperative people plus murder unfortunate bystanders; threaten judges, law-enforcement agents, and ordinary citizens; and work to make an antistate completely outside the rule of any semblance of national law.
Beyond that, their predations denigrate life, destroy families, and weaken culture and social norms —all in the name of making drugs available to ready consumers. (Bennett, T, 1990)