Search

This paper presents an analytical approach for scheduling crackdowns on street-corner drug markets. The crackdown scheduling problem is shown to be NP-complete. We then provide efficient optimal algorithms for several special cases and approximation algorithms for the general case. These results show that the optimal strategy is to give priority to markets that take longer to bring down and which require low levels of post-crackdown maintenance. The results are then extended to incorporate dealer displacement between drug markets. Keywords: Public policy; Modelling; Scheduling theory; Approximation, The optimal method for scheduling crackdowns on illegal drug markets is to prioritize those street-corner drug markets which would take longer to break up and which requires minimal enforcement to maintain the gains achieved by the crackdown. An analytical approach for scheduling crackdowns on these illicit drug markets is introduced. This technique also considers the practice of drug dealers to relocate to another market after a crackdown.

A Markov model is used to demonstrate the flow from light to heavy use of cocaine. The model estimates how drug epidemics have gone from light use to heavy use. The use of cocaine must be counteracted by reducing initiation to the levels of the late 1980s. Prevention programs must be supported by programs which make heavy users to quit to be able to significantly solve cocaine-related problems.

This paper discusses what the goals of national drug policy have been and suggests an alternative set of goals. The past emphasis on use reduction is found wanting. Total harm related to drugs can be viewed as the product of use and harm per use. Thus, reducing use usually serves to reduce harm. However, in some cases, use reduction programs may increase harm per use so much that they increase overall harm even as they succeed in reducing use. Hence, use reduction goals can be usefully augmented with the explicit objective of reducing the total harm created by the production, distribution, consumption, and control of drugs. Numerous programmatic recommendations flow from this approach. (Am J Public Health. 1995; 85:1059-1063), U.S. federal drug control goals should stress harm reduction in addition to use reduction. This would mean allocating resources to address the hard core addict rather than the occasional user. Enforcement efforts would be focused on drugs that do more harm rather than treating all illicit drugs alike. Enforcement would also concentrate on more violent drug distribution organizations, for example, heroin as opposed to marijuana. Programs would stress treatment rather than prison. Sentencing for drug-related offenses would become more fair. Drug use abatement would address alcohol and tobacco equally with illicit drugs since alcohol and tobacco do the greatest harm. Preventative education would be stressed. The Clinton administration's revised National Drug Control Strategy has shifted to emphasizing harm, but there are too many goals and objectives to form practical guidelines for policy nor has the list been prioritized.

The geographic variation of the prices of illicit drugs in the US is investigated. It is hypothesized that prohibited drugs become more expensive as one moves farther away from the source of these drugs as a result of weak information flows and major lateral transaction costs. It is also conjectured that the prices of unlawful drugs are negatively related to market size because of economies of scale. To test these assumptions, a survey of law enforcement agencies is administered by the Middle Atlantic-Great Lakes Organized Crime Law Enforcement Network in 1991. Participants are required to indicate three actual drug purchases made by their offices, including the quantity and type of drug. Results generally support the two hypotheses.

Prevalence estimations of drug-related phenomena, including numbers of users, extent of consequences, and levels of consumption and expenditures, can provide information useful in assessing the scope of the problem, identifying patterns and trends in consumption, evaluating the effectiveness of intervention programs, and allocating resources. The authors summarize the policy needs for, the current status of, and recent developments in prevalence estimation, as described in the preceding articles. Implications raised in the collective work and specific recommendations to improve prevalence estimation in the service of policy are discussed.

The supply of heroin in the United States appears to have grown substantially in recent years, although it is not clear what impact this has had on consumption. Conventional indicators have shown only modest increases, but for a variety of reasons one would not expect increases even if we are in the early years of a new heroin use epidemic. It is even less clear what, if anything, should be done. Drug control resources are finite. Making heroin a new policy focus may impose substantial opportunity costs as resources are diverted from other worthy programs. On the other hand, the history of cocaine in the late 1970s and early 1980s demonstrates that 'wait and see' can be an extremely expensive option. A prudent course may be to implement relatively low-cost interventions that one would not regret undertaking even if a new epidemic never materialized and to enhance monitoring. If these enhanced monitoring programs gave strong signs of increasing use, particularly by new users, bolder interventions might be warranted.

Cannabis prohibition has created disparate harms--especially for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color ("BIPOC")--largely through arrest disparities for possession and their downstream effects. Addressing inequities is increasingly featured in discussions to legalize cannabis supply and adult possession for nonmedical purposes. While there is little disagreement that these inequities exist, those hoping to use cannabis policy to respond to them have proposed multiple options that each come with their own set of potential benefits and costs. This Essay describes some of these opportunities as well as some major puzzles and trade-offs surrounding the use of cannabis policy to advance social equity. Additionally, it offers insights into the number of people who could benefit from various social equity efforts related to cannabis policy. In particular, sealing or expunging cannabis possession convictions could affect many more BIPOC--possibly close to two orders of magnitude more--than prioritizing these individuals for entrepreneurship or employment opportunities in the cannabis industry. These options are not mutually exclusive, but decision makers should consider the possibility of federal legalization and what it will mean for small cannabis businesses when developing cannabis equity programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drug use and control Forces of Habit: Drugs and the Making of the Modern World, by David T. Courtwright. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2001, 277 pp. Forces of Habit […]