Drug abuse theory

 Numerous subsequent theories reflecting various social science orientations

multidisciplinary approaches have been proffered reflecting thematic ideations of

medicinal and recreational drug use (see Petraitis, Flay, & Miller, 1995 and the

Journal of Drug Issues Spring 1996 special issue for detailed reviews of the drug

etiology literature). Within contemporary sociology, drug research is far from

monolithic because theoretical research programs are active across several areas of

specialization including medical sociological epidemiology (patterns and extent of

drug use), drug ethnography (symbolic meaning and social functions of use), and

econometrics (societal implications of economic theory applied to licit and illicit

substance exchange markets), as well as criminology (social origins, dynamics, and

functions of use and regulation). Derivative from the focal concern of crime,

criminological drug research is more narrowly attentive to substance use specified

as illegal, including both illicit drug use and the pharmaceutical diversion of medi-

cine. Social origins and social context are leading themes within the sociology of

drugs, evident across various research topics such as the history of drug prohibi-

tion; the manifest and latent functions of use, enforcement, and treatment; corre-

lates of drug use and abuse; and cultural and environmentally determined drug use

accelerants and barriers (Faupel, Horowitz, & Weaver, 2003; Miller & Selva, 1994).

Criminological theory is rooted in the three broader sociological paradigms that

frame the meaning, functions, and appropriateness of drug use across social con-

texts (see Table 19.1). The structural-functionalist perspective is rooted in the social

thought of Comte, Durkheim, and Parsons and takes a macro view of society as a

multifaceted system comprised of complimentary parts. Normative consensus pro-

motes conformity to rules so that social solidarity and stability can be realized, but

behavior breaching formal norms is thought to breed conflict, anomic conditions,

and social dysfunction. Behavior is thus objectified as conventional or socially

threatening. A second leading perspective, symbolic interactionism, provides a

framework for sociological analysis of the subjective meanings people assign to

things, others, behavior, and events (Blumer, 1986; Mead, 1967). This micro-meso

level perspective observes behavior as a function of subjective understanding of

Chapter 19: Sociological Criminology and Drug Use 317

assigned meaning instead of as objective reality. This social construction of society

approach is particularly suited for deviance research foci such as drug subcultures

and the social dynamics of use. While both functionalist and interactionist

approaches recognize the importance of normative consensus, functionalism looks

more so to formal norms (i.e., law), while interactionism more broadly factors for-

mal and informal norms derived from recognition of the legitimacy of law and

solidification of shared values and beliefs regarding authority.

Last, the conflict perspective assumes social problems are a manifestation of

conflict inseparable from social inequality (Marx, 1978). Inequality generated by

disparities in wealth result in social class conflict wherein the ruling few enjoy

power over the majority through control of social institutions aligned with their

economic interests. This macro level perspective assumes that the creation of

criminal law, generally and especially, the enforcement of morality law (like drug

use) serve the purposes of social control and the manipulation of surplus labor