10 Crime and Violence

The Validity of the Evidence
The escalation theory is a comparatively recent controversy, but for very many years it has been alleged that the use of cannabis is associated with crime. This is particularly the case in America, where early records showed that at one time Commissioner Anslinger denied the possibility of cannabis escalating to heroin (Lindesmith, 1965) but he has always been sure that cannabis led to criminal activities. In an article headed 'Assassin of Youth', Anslinger (1937) found cannabis guilty of 'murders, suicides, robberies, criminal assaults, hold-ups, burglaries, and deeds of maniacal insanity . . . especially among the young'. In 1962 the White House Conference on Narcotic and Drug Abuse concluded that cannabis 'has received a disproportionate share of publicity as an inciter of violent crime', but the controversy still continues in America and, to a lesser extent, in this country.

The basis for this belief seems to be that the words hashish and assassin are derived from the same source, both named after a character known as Hasan-Ibn-Sabbath who lived in the eleventh century. He is said to have been the head of a fanatical tribe who thought up the idea of secretly murdering the leaders of enemy tribes instead of waging war. These murderers were known by the Arabic word hashshashin and his followers were said to be under the influence of hashish when they committed these atrocities.

It is of course, ridiculous that modern social policy should be influenced by eleventh-century folldore, but the story is still quoted as a warning against cannabis. Indeed similar near-anecdotal evidence is often produced to support the association of crime with cannabis.

A near hysteria developed in America in the ten years before the war and this was reflected in reports in the British press. Sixty per cent of the crimes committed in New Orleans in 1936 were attributed to the use of cannabis and a Commissioner of Public Safety (Gomila, 1938) reported that 'youngsters known as " muggleheads " fortified themselves with the narcotic and proceeded to shoot down police, bank clerks, and casual bystanders'.

The most usual way of suggesting the connection between cannabis and crime is to product long lists of potted case histories telling the story of a cruel offence committed by someone who is found to be a user of cannabis. Anslinger (1961) and Bloomquist (1968) have published lists like this, and Munch (1966) cites twenty-eight case histories. A typical example is the third case from Dr Bloomquist which describes a shooting incident and ends: 'When the female suspect was being booked, officers found two plastic bags containing marijuana in her purse.' This was the only mention of the drug and in most of these case histories no evidence is produced to show the individual was under the influence of the drug at the time of the crime.

Another frequent story is about a user of cannabis suddenly running amok, committing motiveless crimes of violence against innocent bystanders. Most of these case histories come from Eastern and Arabic countries where sudden fits of madness have been far from unknown long before they were attributed to drugs. Indeed motiveless killings are reported from time to time in America and this country without any suggestion that the deranged individual is taking drugs.

Sir Aubrey Lewis, in an Appendix of the Wootton report, gives several examples of chronic or excessive indulgence in cannabis leading to panic and violence. This is really no more than a collection of stories without the necessary documentation which would allow the reader to judge the extent that cannabis was an influence on the individual's behaviour.

For example, Sir Aubrey makes four references to the work of Dr Wolff (1949) in his Appendix. This is a book entitled Marijuana in Latin America: The Threat It Constitutes and Dr Wolff repeats many of the crime stories from other articles and books relating to other countries far from South America. Kaplan (1970) has made a careful analysis of this material and notes that Dr Wolff exhibits what can be characterized only as a looseness in his handling of facts'. In a highly emotional closing paragraph, Dr Wolff links cannabis with insanity, crime, violence and brutality and refers to it as, this weed, messenger of a false happiness, panderer to a treacherous love. . . which makes him sick — morally more than physically — and changes thousands of persons into nothing more than human scum. It is this weed. . . of the brutal crime and the burning hell . . . which sets free the spiritual and the bestial, and makes the rabble bespatter pages with blood.' A writer with such lack of detachment is out of place in an Appendix which aims to review the clinical literature.

Later observers in South America (de Pinho, 1962; Moraes Andrade, 1964) have contradicted Dr Wolff 's results and found no evidence that cannabis is an important cause of crime.
There are considerable difficulties in attempting to judge the _value of reports associating cannabis with crime. The first confusion is caused by the fact that it is a crime to possess the drug and to sell it. The user found in possession automatically acquires a criminal record. But it is necessary to distinguish between the consequences of enforcing legal restrictions on drug users, and the alleged criminogenic effects of smoking pot. Then there are the same difficulties as those noted in the previous chapter on escalation, when a correlation is used to demonstrate cause and effect.

A further complication is that, in some countries at least, cannabis is used extensively by those living in impoverished conditions. Among such people there is more than the usual amount of delinquency. In certain communities it can be shown that a large number of criminals use cannabis, but this does not necessarily mean that the drug is a determining factor in the commission of crimes. Bromberg (1934, 1939) showed that the number of criminals who smoked pot was high, but in two large statistical studies he found very little relation between crime and the use of cannabis.

In most of the case histories cited, the background of the individual is unknown. A list of crimes committed by MexicanAmericos who smoke pot is of little significance as they come from a group where many use cannabis, whether they are criminals or not. Furthermore the published reports on individuals running amok only very rarely give a psychiatric history so that it is not possible to isolate the influence of the drug.

The same confusions arise as those noted in Chapter 3 when the effects of cannabis were discussed. Many of the reports of cannabis-induced crimes come from areas where opium, amphetamine or alcohol, are also being used extensively and it is impossible to tell which, if any, of these are to blame for the criminal behaviour. Likewise the potency of the drug varies from place to place and the amount the individual has taken is seldom stated in these reports.

Most surprising of all, it is usually hard to judge from these reports if the criminal has taken an overdose and so lost all control of himself; or if the criminal behaviour is induced by a chronic condition caused by taking cannabis regularly over a long period. In fact the history of drug taking, the amount and duration, is usually provided by the man himself, who often believes that it is in his own interest to exaggerate about the amount he has taken.

The Antithesis of Violence

It is strange that cannabis is usually said to be linked with violent crimes like murder, rape, and assault, and much less often with theft or other crimes where there are financial incentives. This is surprising because, of all the recreational drugs, cannabis is the one which induces lethargy and passive behaviour. On straightforward observation of the effects, it would seem to be the drug that is least likely to be connected with aggression.

Earlier (chapter 6) I have noted that cannabis is the apposite drug for the hippy culture with its emphasis on non-violence — 'the loving generation' and 'the flower children'. The rockers, skinheads, Hell's Angels and other aggressive teenage groups have found amphetamines much more to their liking. Many writers have made the point that cannabis is not likely to be the chosen drug of those who wish to indulge their aggressive instincts. Maurer and Vogel (1967) write: 'It has not been our impression from contact with many hundreds of marihuana users that these people are violent criminals; on the contrary, most of them appear to be rather indolent, ineffectual young men and women who are, on the whole, not very productive.' The Chopras (1942) write that excessive use of cannabis tends to make the individual timid, rather than to lead him to commit crimes of violence'.

Another fact that makes it hard to understand why cannabis should be connected with violence is the way the drug is usually taken. It is difficult to imagine the pot equivalent of a man gulping down a scotch to give him 'dutch courage'. Cannabis is a social drug which is nearly always taken in a group; there is usually a kind of ritual before lighting the joint and when passing it round; the company and the conversation is very much a part of the enjoyment. Incompatible company can spoil the effect for the drug takers (Matza, 1969).

But the influence of the group goes further than this; as Becker (1963) has pointed out, there is considerable interchange of folk knowledge about the effects, what to look out for and how to appreciate them. It is the quintessence of pot smoking to avoid agitation, never to lose one's cool. There is also a kind of protection afforded by the group. As smoking pot is illegal and therefore a secret activity, the group is likely to restrain anyone who gets 'stoned' or starts to do anything which creates a public display likely to attract the attention of the police. Drugs taken in group settings are much less likely to lead to violent behaviour than drugs like alcohol or amphetamines which are often taken in private.

Murphy (1963) writes: 'Most serious observers agree that cannabis does not, per se, induce aggressive or criminal activities, and that the reduction of work drive leads to a negative correlation with criminality rather than a positive one.' Many critics complain that the most serious objection to cannabis is that it creates a proneness to inertia and general passivity. It seems unlikely that the same drug can also lead to hostile and violent behaviour.

Five Possible Links

Although most of the case reports do not furnish sufficient material to allow us to make a sensible estimate of the possible link between crime and cannabis, five specific points deserve our attention.
(1) After taking cannabis for a long period, the user becomes demoralized.
(2) Criminals use cannabis to fortify them before committing a crime.
(3) Cannabis weakens inhibitions so that suppressed criminal tendencies arise.
(4) An overdose creates panic which leads to violence.
(5) Cannabis users are dangerous when driving cars.

Chronic use and demoralization. This situation is more likely to apply to other countries in which cannabis is taken in ghettos where there is already considerable poverty and crime. Cannabis is not the favoured drug of people in the poorest communities of Great Britain. It is true that users must find the money to buy the drug and they may choose to steal rather than work. But there is no sign of this being a major problem in this country at present and the evidence in other countries is confused because it is obtained from groups where crime is endemic. The general passivity of regular cannabis users makes it unlikely to be an important factor. Chronic pot smokers are not very interested in material possessions and they do not need much money; they are unlikely to resort to crime as long as they can obtain supplementary benefits.

Cannabis to fortify the criminal. The drug is not a stimulant and it is unlikely to be of much value to those who lack courage. A better suggestion is that pot is taken so as to have a calming effect on the nervous criminal. This is a possibility but it is also true that the drug would make him a less efficient criminal; the effect of cannabis may be that the crime is less expertly carried out and the offender is more likely to be caught. In some cases the use of pot may actually act as a deterrent; the user may lose interest and what once seemed a good idea may become too much bother. At any event cannabis does not have some mysterious power which forces people to perpetrate crimes which they would not otherwise commit.

Inhibitions are lowered. The evidence for this usually comes from the police and is often confused because the reports usually recount incidents which involve several drugs including alcohol. Until recently police officers tended to group all drugs together as equally likely to lower inhibitions. It may well be true that suppressed criminal tendencies may arise under the influence of cannabis, although it is probably more correct to state that the drug impairs judgement rather than lowers inhibitions. It is equally true of most other drugs; indeed the reason for taking a recreational drug is to achieve a subjective state not ordinarily available and a release from conventional restraints is clearly one of the great attractions of any recreational drug. But there is no doubt that alcohol is much more effective in lowering inhibitions against violence, and if this were the prime object of the drug taker, he would choose to drink rather than smoke pot. In fact cannabis tends to accentuate all traits of the personality, both harmful and beneficial.

Panic through overdose. The Wootton committee reported that even the severest critics of cannabis did not regard it as the direct cause of serious crime in Great Britain. But influenced by Sir Aubrey Lewis' catalogue of anecdotes, they did allow that an excessive dose might lead to agitation, excitement or panic. There really is very little evidence to support these claims. There are no reports of such events which have occurred in Great Britain and Becker (1967) in a special study of the medical literature could only find three papers on this phenomenon. The reports from other countries (Keeler, 1967; Jorgensen, 1968; Milman, 1969) suggest that predisposition to panic is always present and there is usually a long psychiatric history. Even Bloomquistl who testified before a Senate Committee that toxic proportions of cannabis could cause 'heinous crimes due to paranoia, megalomania with increased strength, lack of socio-moral inhibitions and release of basic destructive trends', wrote in his own book (Bloomquist, 1968): 'Because of the relative mildness of Mexican and American varieties of cannabis we have seen very little of cannabis-induced reaction. But with the coming of more potent oriental varieties, with the coming of hashish, we can look for more and more instances of psychosis and violence as a result of cannabis use.' But this prediction is not confirmed by experience in Great Britain where the resin (hashish) is more often smoked than the leaves (marihuana).

The number of psychotic reactions to cannabis are far rarer than one might reasonably expect. In a drug-orientated society it would seem quite natural to turn to the drug of one's choice (usually alcohol) when faced with a stress situation. But the potency of cannabis is usually so low that it is not really all that easy to take an overdose, as it is with other drugs like alcohol, amphetamines, barbiturates. Furthermore the reaction to cannabis is so quick that it is easier to control the effect and so avoid taking too much by mistake. It should be remembered that the fatal dose of cannabis in man is unknown because no reliable account of such an event has ever been reported (Goodman and Gilman, 1965).

Cannabis and driving. In his review of the clinical literature, Sir Aubrey Lewis reported: The one delinquency which receives general reprobation is driving while under the influence of cannabis.' Even the report from the National Council for Civil Liberties (1969) notes: 'As cannabis can cause distortion of perception and a decrease in reaction time, it would be dangerous to drive under the influence of this drug.' But recent researches have cast some doubts upon the magnitude of this. An experimental study from the State of Washington Department of Motor Vehicles (Crancer, 1969) has shown that cannabis has very little effect on driving ability. Weil (1968) found that the performance of novice users of cannabis deteriorated slightly in tests of physical and mental dexterity, but sophisticated pot smokers actually improved their performance in these tests. This is in line with the saying in cannabis circles that inexperienced users find it difficult to drive while high, but regular users have no difficulty. Joe Rogaly, writing in the Financial Times about a group of young Americans he met at Cape Kennedy, had surprising confidence in them. 'My wife quickly decided it was safe to let our young children drive in their van with them, even though they were high on marijuana. For the effect of this drug on these young people seemed to give them an all-pervading gentleness. 'It is obvious that much research is needede because the information now available shows that the situation is not as definite as was once thought.

The Attitudes of Police and Criminals

The strongest advocates of the idea that cannabis leads to crime are the police, and as they are the group who most often meet criminals, their advocacy deserves some attention. The problem is similar to the logical fallacy encountered with escalation. The police believe that many criminals use cannabis and therefore those who take this drug are likely to commit crimes.

In fact there is some doubt whether it really is true for this country that many criminals smoke pot. It is much more likely to be true in the ghettos of Arabic countries and in the urban slums of America where the rates for delinquency and cannabis use both tend to be high. In a group where pot smoking is fairly common, it is likely to be the more aggressive types who are the first to try the drug in much the same way that it is the bold ones who start to smoke and drink at an earlier age — the boys who never refuse a-dare for fear of being called ' chicken '. But these types are not often regular pot smokers because they find alcohol is more suited to their aggressive instincts.

The police are concerned about enforcing all the laws and the distinction made in this chapter between the crime of possessing cannabis, and other criminal acts while under the influence of the drug, is a nicety that does not interest them very much. They are out to prevent all crimes and to stop the use of all recreational drugs. Consequently they are apt to think of one drug as being as bad as another. They know that alcohol and amphetamines (Scott and Wilcox, 1965; Hart and Nation, 1966) are used by many criminals. They do not feel disposed to make an exception in the ease of cannabis. In fact cannabis, unlike alcohol or amphetamines, cannot as yet be detected in the body, so the evidence depends upon finding a quantity at or near the scene of the crime, and upon statements made by the accused.

Offenders often think it will be to their advantage to base their defence on alleged intoxication by cannabis, and information about the amount of the drug taken is usually provided exclusively by the man himself, who may believe that it is in his own interest to exaggerate. Just as the accused sometimes pleads decreased responsibility because he was drunk, another man will claim that cannabis provoked his criminal behaviour Which he cannot now recall and for which he cannot be held fully responsible.

Although this claim is sometimes made, the truth is that cannabis will not produce a ' black-out ' similar to the loss of memory under the influence of alcohol. It is difficult to believe the reports about individuals who have taken so much cannabis that they do not remember what they have done. People under the influence of cannabis may act unconventionally and anti-socially, but they know what they are doing and cannot escape responsibility for their behaviour.

There is no doubt that criminal acts are committed while under the influence of cannabis, but the reports have exaggerated the numbers and the extent of this influence, and it is clear that cannabis is nothing like so criminogenic as alcohol, the most commonly used drug in our society. The reasonable conclusion is that abuse of cannabis should be subject to legal control just as abuse of alcohol is similarly controlled. Lawrence Kolb (1962) reviewed five careful studies by competent investigators in America and found no association between cannabis and aggressive crime, nor was there any evidence that such a thing as a cannabis-induced murder had ever occurred. This conclusion is supported by animal experiments (Garattini, 1965) which showed that the pharmacological effects of cannabis tended to inhibit aggressive instincts.

Foreign reports that connect cannabis with crime are not persuasive and there are no British reports of this kind. It is clear that cannabis has little effect on the behaviour of the criminal, or on the number of the crimes. Criminals may use the drug but it is not a determining factor in the commission of crime.

1. Testimony before California Senate Public Health and Safety Committee, 18 October 1967.