Drugs and Violence Among Ontario Students

Drugs and Violence

Antong Ontario Studentst

Reginald G. Smart, Ph.D. * ; Robert E. Mann* * & Laryssa A. Tyson* * *

Abstract-In this research the links among violent and nonviolent delinquency and the use of alcohol

and other drugs were investigated. The data were derived from the 1 995 Ontario Student Drug Use

Survey, a cross-sectional probability survey of Ontario students in grades seven, nine, I I and 1 3

(n=3,870). Students were classified into four groups: those who reported engaging i n no delinquency,

those who reported violent delinquency only, those who reported nonviolent delinquency only, and

those who reported both violent and nonviolent delinquency. As expected, individuals who reported

violent delinquency also reported the most frequent use of cocaine and amphetamine. The association

of violent delinquency with alcohol use was not as strong as expected; nonviolent delinquents reported

the most frequent use.

Keywords-delinquency, drugs, students, violence

Violence among youth is a growing problem in Canada. Between 1 986 and 1 99 1 , violent charges against youths aged 1 2 to 1 7 increased by 1 06%, while adult charges increased by only 45% (Frank 1 992). Also, the Ontario Student Drug Use Survey reported that far more students admitted to beating up people in 1 99 1 than in 1 983 ( 1 6.4% vs. 9.2%) and engaging in gang fights (7.0% vs. 4.6%) (Adlaf et al . 1 994). Most forms of delinquency, including both violent and nonviolent behaviors, increased. Unfortunately, little is known about the factors related to violence among Canadian youth. This paper reports a study of (i) the extent of violent and nonviolent delinquency among students, and (ii) the association between various types of drug use and both violent and nonviolent delinquency.

tThe authors wish to thank Edward M. Adlaf for his comments on this paper and his help with the analysis.

* Head, Social Epidemiology, Clinical, Social Evaluation & Research Department, Addiction Research Foundation, Toronto, Canada.

* *Senior Scientist, Addiction Research Foundation, Toronto, Canada.

***Research Assistant, Addiction Research Foundation, Toronto, Canada.

Please address correspondence and reprint requests to Reginald G. Smart, Ph.D., Addiction Research Foundation, 33 Russell Street, Toronto, Canada.

Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 369

While it is generally believed that drug use and violence are directly linked, the evidence for an association of violent delinquency and many types of drug use is weak. Perhaps the evidence is best for alcohol. Both experimental and epidemiological studies show that alcohol increases aggressive and violent behavior (see Reiss & Roth 1 993; Moss & Tarter 1 993 for reviews). The conventional wisdom is that alcohol has a disinhibiting effect which allows the release of aggressive behavior.

Evidence of a disinhibiting effect on aggression is much weaker for most other drugs. For example, cannabis produces calmness , passivity and social harmony (Pliner, Cappell & Miles 1 972) and is rarely associated with increased aggression. Also, opioids usually produce sedation; heroin addicts are overrepresented in nonviolent crimes such as theft, but underrepresented in violent crimes against persons (McBride & Swartz 1 990).

Evidence for the association of stimulant drugs with aggression is somewhat better but not unequivocal. Experimental studies of both amphetamine and cocaine (Cherek, Steinberg & Kelly 1 987, 1 986; Jones 1 973) show that acute doses do not lead to increased aggression. However, clinical studies do show that cocaine (and its crack version) can

Vol . 29 (4), October - December 1997

Smart, Mann & Tyson Drugs and Violence Among Ontario Students

TABLE 1 Numbers and Percentage of Students Reporting One or More Violent Delinquency Items

and Those Reporting One or More Nonviolent Delinquency Items

Nonviolent Delinquency No

Violent Delinquency No 1 02 1 (57.0) Yes 230 ( 1 2.8)

Total 1 25 1 (69.8)

lead to paranoid reactions and aggressive acting out based on these reactions. Also, medical examiners' reports (see Moss & Tarter 1 99 3 for a review) have shown l inks between overall homicide rates in American cities and reported cocaine use. Reiss and Roth ( 1 993), however, have pointed out that homicide rates in American cities do not relate to the rate of positive cocaine tests found among arrestees in those cities. Also, the National Drug Use Forecasting Study showed that in 1 986 about 60% of arrestees for violent offenses tested positive for one or more illegal drugs, slightly less than for those arrested for property crimes (Wish, Brady & Cuadrado 1 986). However, studies of offender samples show that drug users and addicts have higher rates of violent and nonviolent crime than nonusers (Reiss & Roth 1 993). Because such users take of variety a drugs, including alcohol, it is difficult to be sure which drugs are most responsible for their higher crime rate.

The association between delinquency and drug use in general seems well established for adolescents (Adlaf et al. 1994 ), but studies of violence and particular types of drug use are rare. It has been argued (Vingilis & Adlaf 1 990; Jessor & Jessor 1 977) that both drug use and delinquency reflect a general syndrome of adolescent deviance. However, studies of how particular types of drug use relate to violence among adolescents have not been found. This article reports a study of the rates of violent and nonviolent delinquency and combined delinquencies among Ontario students in grades seven to 1 3 and a study of how the use of particular drugs is associated with different types of delinquency. The authors expected that violent delinquency would be most closely associated with the use of stimulants, such as cocaine and amphetamines, as well as with the drinking of alcohol .

METHOD

This study is based on data derived from the 1 995 Ontario Student Drug Use Survey, a cross-sectional probability survey of Ontario students enrolled in grades seven, nine, I I and 1 3 (Adhf et al . 1 995). (Excluded from the sample is the 7% of the population who attend private schools or special education classes, reside in correctional or health facilities, reside on Indian reserves or Canadian


Yes Total

1 99 ( 1 1 . 1 ) 1 22 1 (68. 1 )

342 ( 1 9. 1 ) 572 (3 19) 542 (30.2) 1 793 ( 1 00.0)

Forces bases, and those who reside in the far northern regions of Ontario.) A stratified, single-stage cluster sample of homeroom classes selected students from four grades (seven, nine, 1 1 , and 1 3) and from four geographic regions (Metro Toronto, Western, Eastern and Northern Ontario). A probability sample of students was selected independently from each of the 1 6 strata. The final sample comprised 3 ,870 students from 20 school boards, 1 37 schools and 233 classes, representing a participation rate of 76%. The data are based on interviews fielded by the Institute for Social Research at York University using a self-administered, anonymous questionnaire completed during classroom time, in 30- to 40-minute sessions.

The primary independent variable in this study is based on an a priori classification of types of delinquency. Based on a series of 1 2 delinquency items, students were classified as to whether they engaged in violent delinquency (yes vs. no) and nonviolent delinquency (yes vs. no), resulting in a four-fold classification: ( 1 ) violent delinquents, (2) nonviolent delinquents, (3) violent and nonviolent delinquents and (4) nondelinquents. Violent delinquency was defined as a positive response to any of the following three items: How often in the last 1 2 months have you done each of the following: (a) Beat up anyone or hurt anyone (on purpose), not counting fights you may have had with a brother or sister; (b) carried a weapon, such as a gun or knife; and (c) taken part in gang fights?

Nonviolent delinquency was defined as engaging in any of the following nine items: (a) taking a car for a ride without the owner's permission; (b) banging up or damaging (on purpose) something that did not belong to you; (c) selling marijuana or hashish; (d) taking things worth $50 or less that did not belong to you ; (e) taking things worth more than $50 that did not belong to you; (f) breaking into a locked building, other than your own home; (g) selling drugs other than marijuana or hashish; (h) being thrown out of your home (that is, being told to leave your home when you did not want to leave); and (i) running away from your home (that is, leaving home without the permission of one or both of your parents) .

Differences in drug measures were then profiled according to delinquency status . Tobacco use was based on the number of cigarettes smoked per day (nonsmokers

Vol . 29 (4), October - December 1 997


TABLE 2 Drug Use Differences According to Delinquency Status*

Violent and

Nonviolent Nonviolent Violent Probability

Delinquency Delinquency Delinquency Nondelinquent F x2

(n=342) (n=199) (n=230) (n=1021) Tobacco 1 .67 1 .73 1 .26 .95 <.001 <.00 1

Alcohol 1 3 .55 1 8 .28 1 3 . 3 1 9.52 <.00 1 <.001

Cannabis 1 . 1 5 1 .58 1 .28 0.9 1 .0 1 0 <.001

Glue 0. 1 0 0.02 0.02 0.01 <.001 <.001

Solvents 0. 1 0 0,02 0.08 0.03 .019 <.00 1

Nonmedical barbiturates 0.05 0. 1 2 0. 1 8 0.02 .049 <.00 1

Medical barbiturates 0. 1 7 0.20 0. 14 0. 1 6 .979 <.001

Heroin 0.01 0. 1 7 0.02 0.21 .597 <.001

Speed 0.06 0.30 0.5 1 0. 1 0 .003 <.001

Nonmedical stimulants 0. 1 2 0.60 0.25 0. 1 4 .001 <.001

Medical stimulants 0.38 0. 1 7 0.37 0. 1 2 . 1 89 <.001

Nonmedical tranquilizers 0.03 0. 1 6 0.02 0.03 .033 <.001

Medical tranquil izers 0.09 0.04 0.02 0.07 .876 .309

LSD 0. 14 0.27 0.49 0.24 .332 <.001

PCP 0.00 0. 1 0 0.01 0.03 .540 <.001

Hallucinogens 0.09 0.20 0.08 0. 1 0 .241 <.001

Cocaine 0.05 0.25 0.39 0.06 .0 16 <.001

Crack 0.01 0.0 1 0.02 0.01 .277 <.001

Ice 0.00 0. 1 9 0.00 0. 1 7 .780 .504

Ecstasy (MDM A) 0.00 0.07 0.26 0.09 .654 <.001

Alcohol problems -0.30 -0.29 -0.29 -0.28 .025 .025

Drug problems -0. 1 5 -0. 1 9 -0. 1 8 -0. 1 6 .209 .208

Percent males 68.2 45.6 64.3 42.2 <.001

Mean age 1 5 . 1 9 1 6. 1 5 1 5 .05 1 5 .72 <.00 1

*Tobacco measures are mean cigarettes smoked pe r day; measures for other substances are the number o f occasions used i n the past 12 months.

coded 0). Alcohol was based on the frequency with which students consumed alcohol during the past 1 2 months . Alcohol frequency categories were coded to include nonuse (coded 0), used once a month or less (coded 12 drinks), two to three times a month (coded 30 drinks), once a week (coded 52 drinks), two to three times a week (coded 1 30 drinks), four or five times a week (coded 234 drinks), and almost every day (coded 338 drinks).

In addition, differences were examined in the use of 1 8 other drugs: cannabis, glue, solvents, nonmedical and medical barbiturates, heroin, speed, nonmedical and medical stimulants, nonmedical and medical tranquilizers, LSD, PCP, other hallucinogens, cocaine, crack, ice and ecstasy. All drugs were measured on a frequency scale ranging from 0 to 40 or more times during the past 1 2 months.

The authors also examined the differences in reported alcohol and other drug problems. Alcohol problems were represented by a composite measure of five items: (a) have you ever been warned by the police because of your use of alcohol ; (b) have you ever seen a doctor or been in a hospital because you had been drinking alcohol; (c) have you ever talked to a school counselor, school nurse or teacher

Journal of Psychoacrive Drugs 371

because you had a problem as a result of your use of alcohol; (d) do you wish you could drink less alcohol than you do now; (e) do your parents think you drink too much alcohol?

Other drug problems were also represented by a composite measure of five dichotomous (yes/no) questions: (a) have you ever been arrested or warned by the police because of your use of a drug other than alcohol; (b) have you ever seen a doctor or been in a hospital because of your use of a drug other than alcohol; (c) have you ever talked to a school counselor, school nurse or teacher because you ·had a problem as a result of your use of a drug other than alcohol; (d) do your parents think that you use drugs, other than alcohol, too often; and (e) do you wish you could use drugs less than you do now? For both alcohol and other drug problem measures, scores ranged from zero to five.

Two strategies were employed in comparing drug use among the four delinquency typologies. First, AN OVA was used to compare frequency of drug use among the four groups. Second, chi-square tests of independence were employed on the prevalence of drug use (i .e . , the percentage

Vol. 29 (4), October - December 1 997


FIGURE 1 Substance Use Profile According to Delinquency Status

0.1

I! � 0�--��+-��+-r+,� N

-o.1

• Violent .oo Norwlolert e Nonviolent • VIolent •

Significant at p<.05 or greater.

Note: Nondelinquent profile excluded.

who have used at least once). Because theANOVA frequencyof-use measures might be influenced by significantly skewed data, the chi-square analysis can also be useful to evaluate the robustness of typological differences. Thus, more emphasis should be placed on measures in which both the ANOVA and x2 indicate significant group differences.

Because the survey design employs disproportional sampling and clustering, the analyses are weighted according to the appropriate sampling weights and to an average correction factor for the design effect. This adjustment reduces the interviewed sample of 3 ,870 to an effective sample size for analysis of 1 ,793.

RESULTS

Table I shows the numbers and percentages of students reporting delinquent acts in the past year. It can be seen that a slight maj ority of students (57 .0%) reported no delinquency. About one-fifth ( 19. 1 %) reported both violent and nonviolent delinquency. About the same minority reported violent delinquency only ( 1 2.8%) or nonviolent delinquency only ( 1 1 . 1 % ). Overall , nearly one-third reported some violent delinquency (3 1 .9% ).

Table 2 shows the comparisons for the violent and nonviolent delinquents, nonviolent delinquents, violent delinquents and nondelinquents using analysis of variance. The percentage of males was highest in the two groups reporting violent delinquency. Average age was highest in the nondelinquent and nonviolent delinquency groups. It can


also be seen that there are significant differences for 1 0 of the 20 drugs (alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, glue, solvents, nonmedical tranquilizers, nonmedical barbiturates, speed, nonmedical stimulants and cocaine). Also there are differences in the frequency of alcohol problems, but not other drug problems.

Because the unit of measurement differs substantially across drug use measures, the authors standardized all measures (Figure 1 ). For simplicity, the nondelinquent group was excluded. The violent delinquent group was highest in cocaine and speed use and lowest for tobacco, glue and cannabis. The violent and nonviolent delinquents were highest in the use of glue and lowest in the use of nonmedical stimulants, speed, cannabis and nonmedical barbiturates. The nonviolent delinquent group was highest in the use of alcohol and nonmedical stimulants and lowest for solvents.

DISCUSSION

The authors found that most students (57%) reported no delinquency. However, 1 9 . 1 % reported both violent and nonviolent delinquency and about the same proportions ( 1 2.8% and 1 1 . 1 %) reported violent or nonviolent delinquency only. There were significant differences among delinquent groups for 1 1 of the 20 drugs. As expected, it was found that the violent delinquent group was highest in cocaine and speed use. However, they were not highest in the use of medical or nonmedical stimulants or crack

Vol . 29 (4), October - December 1 997

Smart, Mann & Tyson

cocaine. The nonviolent delinquent group was highest in the use of alcohol and nonmedical stimulants.

In general, there is support for the hypothesis that violent delinquency is associated with greater use of stimulants. However, this applies mainly to cocaine and speed, the two popular illicit drugs. Why the expected relationship was not found for nonmedical and medical stimulants and crack is uncertain . Crack is rarely used and the lack of relationships may be due to small numbers in the various delinquency groups . However, nonmedical and medical stimulants are more frequently used than cocaine. It may be that the method of using cocaine generates a more rapid onset of symptoms which are difficult to control. Also, some violence may be related to cocaine dealing and be endemic to the system of distribution. More detailed studies are needed of how violence and cocaine use are intertwined. It should also be noted that the violence reported here may occur during or after the use of more than one drug or without any direct drug effect among sometime users of cocaine.

Drugs and Violence Among Ontario Students

It is of interest to see that the association of alcohol with violence among students was not as strong as anticipated. The nonviolent-only group was highest in its use of alcohol, the nondelinquent group was lowest, and the violent-only and both violent-and-nonviolent groups fell in between. More research on how students employ alcohol is needed. Much student drinking is done in party situations away from home. Among adults, alcohol and violence are often linked to domestic disturbances and to licensed drinking establishments . Perhaps, then, there are situational factors present in these circumstances which are in part responsible for evoking violent behavior, and to which adolescent drinkers are exposed with less frequency than adult drinkers. As well, it is worth noting that the index of drinking employed here is a frequency measure. It may be possible that other measures of alcohol use are stronger correlates of violence, such as average amount consumed on a drinking occasion, or frequency of heavy drinking.

REFERENCES

Adlaf, E.M.; I vis, F.J.; Smart, R.G. & Walsh, G.W. 1 995. Ontario Student Drug Use Survey, 1 977-1 995. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation.

Adlaf, E.M.; Smart, R.G.; Walsh, G.W. & I vis, F.J. 1994. Is the association between drug use and delinquency weakening? Addiction 89: 1675-8 1 .

Cherek, D .R . ; Steinberg, J .L . & Kelly, T.H . 1 987. Effects o f damphetamine on aggressive responding of normal male subjects. Psychiatry Research 2 1 :257-65.

Cherek, D . R . ; Steinberg, J .L . & Kelly, T.H. 1 986. Effects of damphetamine on human aggressive behaviour. Psychopharmacology 688:38 1 -6.

Frank, J . 1 992. Violent youth crime. Canadian Social Trends 26:2-9. Jessor, R. & Jessor, S.L. 1 977. Problem Behavior and Psychosocial

Development: A Longitudinal Study of Youth. New York: Academic Press.

Jones, R.T. 1 973. Mental illness and drugs: Preexisting psychopathology and response to psychoactive drugs. In: Drug Use in America: Problem in Perspective. Washington, D.C . : National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse.


McBride, D.C. & Swartz, J.A. 1 990. Drugs and violence in the age of crack cocaine. In: R . Weisheit (Ed.) Drugs, Crime, and Criminal Justice System. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing.

Moss, H.B. & Tarter, R.E. 1 993. Substance abuse aggression and violence; What are the connections? American Journal on Addictions 2: 149-59.

Pliner, P. ; Cappell, H . & Miles, G. 1 972. Observer j udgments of intoxicated behavior during social interaction: A comparison of alcohol and marijuana. In: J.M. Singh; L.H. Miller & H. La! (Eds.) Drug Addiction. Mount Kisco, New York: Futura Publishing.

Reiss, A. & Roth, J.A. 1 993. Understanding and Preventing Violence. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Vingilis, E. & Adlaf, E. 1 990. The structure of problem behaviour among Ontario high school students: A confirmatory-factor analysis. Health Education Research 5 : 1 5 1 -60.

Wish, E. ; Brady, E. & Cuadrado, M. 1 986. Urine Testing of Arrestees: Findings from Manhattan. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Vol. 29 (4), October - December 1997

Documents

Drugs and Violence Among Ontario Students