The main problem with much of the literature is that opinion frequently substitutes for evidence and untested hypotheses become well-known 'facts.' The inevitability hypothesis, for example, has not been subjected to a reasonable test but has been frequently discussed in view of irrelevant evidence for and against it. Economic analysis of drug use and crime should start with the recognition that drug abuse is a consumption activity, while the crimes of drug abusers are income-generating activities. The term drug abuse is a medicolegal label which establishes conditions of risk and inconvenience which influence the effective price of drug consumption. Both drug use and criminal activity involve learned behaviors. Association with the drug subculture rather than pharmacological properties of opiates or the cost of drugs is the most likely explanation for the association between drug abuse and crime in the early stages of drug use. The conventional view that drug abuse leads to crime is a tenuous one where it relies solely on pharmaeconomic determinism of heroin consumption. The likelihood of this relationship between drug abuse and crime cannot be ruled out, however, for heroin or any other drug. In addition, the available evidence indicates that drug abusers may well be distributed across the full range of legal and illegal income-generating activities and across the full range of public income transfer programs. Whether or not an individual chooses crime as a way of obtaining money for drug abuse depends on the set of opportunities available. Notes and a list of 75 references are provided.