These findings, while far from definitive, do not suggest a clear and direct link between cannabis use and crime. This makes it difficult for researchers to infer the extent to which a certain behaviors can be attributed to specific substances. Furthermore, because of the way that marijuana is metabolized by the human body, positive tests for marijuana only indicate use within the past month, and therefore do not necessarily signify that a particular crime was committed while under the influence . In fact, in some studies cannabis has been shown to inhibit aggression and violence . Thus, although it may appear that marijuana use is associated with criminal arrests, there are many reasons to be skeptical about that correlation. The drug-crime link, in psychopharmacological terms, is stronger for alcohol than it is for illicit drugs . “In the case of marijuana,” Resignato concludes, “the assumed psychopharmacological connection between use and violent crime has been almost completely disproved in the research” . Research on economic-compulsive drug related crime tends to focus on drugs with higher addictive potentials than cannabis, most notably heroin and cocaine . Perhaps the most compelling mechanism through which drugs might lead to crime is through the occurrence of systemic violence . The violence associated with markets for illegal drugs is at least indirectly caused by drug prohibition and enforcement, “a relationship that may be underestimated by many policy officials” . It is plausible that this would apply to retail vendors of medical marijuana—although arguably less so than the illicit dealers of the drug, who are displaced by legal or quasi-legal cannabis businesses .
This is the dynamic explored by the present study. I conclude from the available literature that cannabis drying rack has no significant relationship with crime via its psychopharmacological effects or its capacity to bring about economic-compulsive criminal behavior in its users . I argue that the only plausible link between cannabis and crime lies in the extent to which the drug attracts “systemic violence”, due to its illicit status and high market value. The following chapter presents a conceptual model that can be used to test empirically whether or not medical cannabis dispensaries are associated with crime in city neighborhoods. Do medical cannabis dispensaries increase crime? It depends who you ask. Empirical evidence is scant and is almost entirely overshadowed by anecdotal reports and sensationalized hearsay. For example, a 2009 report compiled by the Coalition for a Drug-Free California alleges that “marijuana escalates the level of mental illness, crime and all related problems” . But the report offers little empirical evidence in support of these claims. The CaliforniaPolice Chiefs Association —an organization representing California’s municipal law enforcement agencies—has also been a vocal critic of dispensaries. Its 2009 White Paper on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries concludes that the presence of dispensaries “poses a clear violation of federal and state law; they invite more crime; and they compromise the health and welfare of law-abiding citizens” . The underlying evidence is entirely anecdotal: the CPCA presents no statistical analysis supporting the conclusion that medical cannabis dispensaries cause crime at a higher rate than any other business. The CPCA’s assertion that dispensaries increase crime stands in conflict with an analysis conducted by the Police Department of Denver, Colorado, which in 2010 projected that dispensaries attract crime at a similar rate as pharmacies and a lower rate than banks or liquor stores. A recent study conducted by researchers at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs examined crime data in 95 census tracts in Sacramento .
No clear link was found between the density of marijuana dispensaries and the rate of violent or property crime, suggesting that dispensaries do not increase crime and that some security steps taken by dispensaries may actually reduce local crime. Despite the insistence of organizations such as the Coalition for a Drug-Free California and the California Police Chiefs Association, there does not appear to be an obvious link between medical cannabis dispensaries and criminal behavior in surrounding areas. Limited reports from California and Colorado suggest a neutral or negative correlation between MCDs and crime, but more empirical research is needed to substantiate a generalized claim to that effect. This study aims to extend current knowledge about the relationship between MCDs and crime through a geospatial analysis of crime data from San Francisco.Thus routine activities theory attempts to explain crime by looking at the ecological circumstances in which it occurs, while other criminological approaches tend to focus on the characteristics of criminal offenders. Both are useful to the present study, which analyzes whether crime is related to MCD presence in city neighborhoods but is also interested in controlling for demographic characteristics related to crime across those neighborhoods. Regarding the number and concentration of motivated offenders in an area, MCDs could have a positive, negative, or neutral effect on crime. If cannabis use directly or indirectly leads to criminal behavior, then MCDs might increase crime in a neighborhood by concentrating a large number of cannabis users in one place. It is also possible that MCDs could reduce criminal behavior in a neighborhood by displacing illicit dealers of the drug. And it is of course possible that MCDs have no effect whatsoever on the number or concentration of motivated criminal offenders in an area. From a routine activities perspective, the most likely link between MCDs and crime is probably in the extent to which MCDs present suitable targets for crime. Components of target suitability include value, visibility, and accessibility . With respect to value, MCDs tend to possess large amounts of cash and cannabis, which are high-value targets for theft. As Felson notes, “lions look for deer near their watering hole” . Patients, vendors, and especially staff are potential targets of crime: “Employees of the dispensaries can be at-risk for violent crimes, such as robbery or assault, as they are gatekeepers to both the marijuana products and the cash at the site” .
In California it is estimated that MCDs conduct roughly $1.9 billion in gross sales annually. Beyond the fairly obvious point that criminals like to steal things of value—which is just as true for MCDs as it is for banks, pharmacies, and other retail businesses—there are other valid reasons to believe that criminals would perceive MCDs as suitable targets. Most MCDs are open systems that are constantly seeking new members through advertising and other means. Thus they present, in many cases, highly visible targets for crime. Although few empirical studies have examined the relationship between MCDs and crime, existing research has explored the criminogenic effects of other land uses A study by Roncek and Lobosco reported that high schools elevate local crime rates, probably through the concentration of likely offenders . Brantingham and Brantingham found an inverse relationship between crime rates and distance from the nearest McDonald’s. As Felson explains, the restaurants themselves may be safe—but they attract customers who are “in prime offending and victim ages, producing high crime risk for nearby properties” . There is strong evidence to suggest that bars and other establishments that serve alcohol meet the criteria for target suitability . This provides an interesting point of comparison for medical cannabis dispensaries and other retail businesses. A criminal might reasonably perceive that a patron entering or leaving such businesses would be in possession of some amount of cash and therefore be an attractive target for theft . The establishments themselves operate largely in cash and are accessible to the public, vertical grow system in many cases advertising themselves in an effort to increase their accessibility. The perception that these would be easy targets is compounded by the perception that patrons and staff might be medically ill or intoxicated . Thus, as Roncek and Maier conclude in the case of bars, “the patrons and the businesses have all the components of target suitability” . The degree to which MCDs present suitable targets for crime—a notion that is subject to considerable debate—is largely dependent on the effectiveness of MCD security measures. Here we see an inverse relationship between target suitability and the third core component of routine activities theory, capable guardianship. As guardianship increases, a potential target becomes less and less accessible to predatory crime. By definition, members of MCDs suffer from medical conditions that qualify for medical cannabis treatment. This could create a perception of vulnerability that is attractive to criminals seeking to obtain cannabis and/or cash without a fight. It is also possible that criminals perceive MCD operators to be less likely to report crime due to their precarious legal existence and a resulting incentive not to attract attention from law enforcement. Thus it is plausible that the presence of MCDs might increase crime in a neighborhood by presenting, in the terms of routine activities theory, accessible targets for crime.
But it is also possible that criminals do not perceive MCDs to be suitable targets for crime, or that they consider them no more attractive than other retail businesses with high-value inventories and large amounts of cash. Furthermore, it is possible that—compared to other potential targets in the neighborhood—criminals actually perceive MCDs to be unsuitable targets. This largely depends on the effectiveness of guardianship in a neighborhood to prevent crime. Compared to other businesses, MCDs might represent superior guardianship in a neighborhood and thereby serve to reduce the frequency of crime. Security protocols are one way in which an MCD might do this. Many dispensaries implement security protocols—in order to comply with local mandates or simply to protect their patients, vendors, and staff—that might serve to increase the level of guardianship in a community and thereby reduce crime in a neighborhood, as routine activities theory suggests. In a recent working paper for the California Center for Population Research at UCLA, Nancy Williams and colleagues present a routine activities approach for examining the link between MCDs and crime. They examined 95 census tracts in Sacramento and found that tracts containing dispensaries were not significantly associated with higher rates of crime when controlling for other neighborhood characteristics . This study borrows from their work in applying a routine activities approach to MCDs in San Francisco.Social disorganization researchers have identified several neighborhood characteristics that are positively associated with crime. This study borrows from their work in selecting control variables to address the fact that social and demographic characteristics vary widely across city neighborhoods, with significant implications for social and economic activity, public health and safety, and other outcomes. Whereas routine activities theory focuses on the circumstances in which crime occurs, social disorganization theorists point to the social and demographic characteristics of surrounding communities in explaining outcomes of high crime and violence. Social disorganization has been concisely summarized by Sampson and Groves: “The general hypothesis is that low economic status, ethnic heterogeneity, residential mobility, and family disruption lead to community social disorganization, which, in turn, increases crime and delinquency rates” . This approach is summarized in Figure 2.2 below. According to this theory, crime is associated with what Sampson and Groves call “exogenous sources of social disorganization” . This study controls for three such categories of neighborhood characteristics: economic deprivation, residential instability, and family disruption. Low socioeconomic status translates to lower levels of formal and informal social control. High residential turnover disrupts social relations and erodes collective efficacy. Higher rates of family disruption, i.e. a higher proportion of single-parent versus married-couple households, results in decreased parental supervision and a relative lack of guardianship . These conceptual links to crime, expounded originally by Shaw and McKay , have received more nuanced theoretical attention from Kornhauser , Sampson and Groves , and Veysey and Messner . The explanatory power of their empirical correlates is discussed in the following section, which describes the measures to be analyzed in the present study. In the original test of social disorganization theory by Sampson and Groves , low SES was found to be significantly associated with crime. The link between economic deprivation and crime may be more complex than the simplistic explanation that poor people have higher incentives to commit crime and suffer lower opportunity costs for doing so. For example, Sampson reports in an earlier work that low SES neighborhoods have higher levels of police supervision, independent of actual law violate behavior .