Article Text

Download PDFPDF
“Unequal opportunity”: neighbourhood disadvantage and the chance to buy illegal drugs
  1. C L Storr1,
  2. C-Y Chen1,
  3. J C Anthony1,2
  1. 1Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA
  2. 2Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
  1. Correspondence to:
 Carla Storr
 Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N Broadway, 8th Floor, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; cstorrjhu.edu

Abstract

Study objectives: This study investigates whether subgroups of people living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods may be more likely to come into contact with drug dealers as compared with persons living in more advantaged areas, with due attention to male-female and race-ethnicity differences.

Design: Standardised survey data collected using stratified, multistage area probability sampling.

Setting: United States of America, 1998.

Participants: Nationally representative sample of household residents age 12 or older (n = 25 500).

Main results: Evidence supports an inference that women are less likely to be approached by someone selling illegal drugs. The study found no more than modest and generally null racial and ethnicity differences, even for residents living within socially disadvantaged neighbourhoods, where chances to buy illegal drugs are found to be more common.

Conclusions: Limitations of survey data always merit attention, but this study evidence lends support to the inference that physical and social characteristics of a neighbourhood can set the stage for opportunities to become involved with drugs.

  • neighbourhoods
  • opportunity
  • women
  • drugs
  • NHSDA

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Funding: the work was supported by NIDA R01DA09897.

  • Conflicts of interest: none declared.

Linked Articles