Social Circumstances of Non-Convicted vs Convicted Drug Users

  • Charles E. Reeves


This paper deals with the criminal behaviour of a group of young drug users in the geographical area of Southern Hampshire, England. It is based upon data obtained in intensive personal interviews of a non-representative sample of one hundred and twenty-two drug users. It thus differs from most previous studies which have dealt mainly with the institutionalized drug users. Although studies on institutionalized users reveal a great deal about patterns of criminal behaviour associated with drug use, they reveal very little about what happens before and after the individual’s institutionalization, and almost nothing at all about the individual’s use of drugs and non-reported criminal behaviour, and the events that led to the cmiminal behaviour being brought to the attention of the various statutory bodies. Equally important, research conducted in institutions contains little or no information about many of the attitudes, values and other characteristics of a drug taking group with which this study is concerned.


Drug User Social Class Criminal Behaviour Social Distance Social Circumstance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ball, J.C. (1967). “Reliability and Validity of Data Obtained from 59 Narcotic Drug Addicts”. American Journal of Sociology, 72, 650–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chief Constable’s Report (1972, 1975). Hampshire, England.Google Scholar
  3. Dohrenwend, B.S. et al. (1968). “Social Distance and Interviewer Effects”. Public Opinion Quarterly, 32, 410–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gold, R. (1950). “Roles in Sociological Field Observations”, Social Forces, 36, 217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hindess, B. (1973). The Use of Social Statistics in Sociology, The MacMillen Co. U.S.A.Google Scholar
  6. Kuhn, M.H. (1962). “The Interviewer and the Professional Relationship”. In Rose, A.M. (ed.) Human Behaviour and Social Process, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.Google Scholar
  7. Polsky, N. (1971). Hustlers, Beats and Others, London, Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  8. Reeves, C.E. (1972). “Motivation for Changing Methods of Drug Taking”. Proceedings I.A.A. Conference, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  9. West, D. (1969). Present Conduct and Future Delinquency, International Universe Press, London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles E. Reeves
    • 1
  1. 1.Social Sciences Research CouncilUSA

Personalised recommendations