the war on drugs: methamphetamine, public health and crime carlos dobkin, nancy nicosia
Post on 19-Dec-2015
215 views
TRANSCRIPT
Why Is Methamphetamine a Problem?
• Methamphetamine is typically inhaled, but may also be ingested orally or injected.
• Slows dopamine uptake and creates a euphoric state• Some users experience violent and psychotic episodes
– Hallucinations, paranoia, depression
• Some users experience adverse physical symptoms– Chest pains, headaches
• Surveyed users in Queensland reported that methamphetamine use had caused them to commit both property and violent crimes.
Methamphetamine Abuse Is a Growing Problem in the U.S.
• In the 1980s methamphetamine was used primarily by adult white males in western states– Use is increasing among minorities, women and high school
students– 24 states reported increases of 100% or more in
methamphetamine treatment admissions from 1993 to 1999 (SAMHSA 2001)
– Nearly one-third of state and local enforcement agencies surveyed in 2003 rated methamphetamine as one of the greatest drug threats in their area (NDIC 2003)
• Recently, the news has focused on the growing meth problem and associated crime (e.g. NYTimes 2/10/2005)
Drug Treatment Admissions in the United States - Amphetamines, Cocaine and Heroin
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Year
Co
un
t
Amphetamines
Cocaine
Heroin
Drug Treatment Admissions for Amphetamines
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Year
Co
un
t
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
The Government Has Three Strategies to Curb Illegal Drug Use
• Prevention: Education and community action – Discourage people from starting to use drugs– $2B budget in 2005– Demand side intervention
• Treatment: Programs for drug users– Get people who use drugs to stop– $4B budget in 2005– Demand side intervention
• Enforcement: Reduce Availability– $6B budget in 2005– Supply side intervention– Unlike treatment and prevention experimental evaluation is not
feasible
Goals of this Study
• Examine the impact of an extremely successful DEA enforcement effort in the methamphetamine precursor market on:– Price and purity of methamphetamine– Hospitalizations and drug treatment admissions for
methamphetamine– Property crime, violent crime and drug crime
Evidence of the Effect of Reducing Methamphetamine Supply
• Cunningham and Liu (2003) find that regulation of precursors reduces methamphetamine hospitalizations.
• Abt Associates (2000) find a 1% price increase in methamphetamine reduces consumption by 1.48%.
• Numerous studies of price elasticity of cocaine and heroin in U.S. (DiNardo 1993, Yuan and Caulkins 1998, Caulkins 2000).
• These studies have some limitations– They are identified of changes in price with unknown sources.– They use data aggregated to the year level potentially masking
local or temporary changes.– They do not examine the direct effect of enforcement on
outcomes of interest such as crime and adverse health events.
Methamphetamine Production Is Dependent on Precursor Availability
• Methamphetamine is “cooked” in illegal drug labs using either ephedrine or pseudoephedrine as a precursor
• Ephedrine or pseudoephedrine have many legal uses.– Over the counter medicine such as Sudafed and Tylenol Cold
contain them
• The DEA works to keep these precursors from getting diverted to illegal uses
Significant Precursor Legislation (1989-2000)
• October 1989: Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act– Regulated bulk ephedrine and pseudoephedrine
• August 1995: Domestic Chemical Diversion Control Act (DCDCA) – Removes the record keeping and reporting exemption for single
entity ephedrine products.• October 1996: Methamphetamine Control Act
– Regulates access to over the counter medicines containing ephedrine.
• October 1997: Methamphetamine Control Act – Regulates products containing pseudoephedrine or
phenylpropanolamine• July 2000: The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act
– Establishes thresholds for pseudoephedrine drug products.
Significant Precursor Interventions Resulted from the DCDCA
• Two large interventions occurred in May 1995 – Clifton Pharmaceuticals: 25 metric tons of precursors– Xpressive Looks International: 500 cases and distribution
network of 830 million tablets (over 18 months)
• Scale of two interventions is enormous– Production potential was 29 metric tons of methamphetamine
• Scale dwarfs other seizure and consumption measures– DEA seized only 762 kilograms of methamphetamine in 1994
(DEA STRIDE)– ONDCP estimated total methamphetamine consumption was
34.1 metric tons in 1994
Our Analysis Relies on Detailed Data from Government Sources
• Census of DEA seizures & purchases• Census of California hospitalizations• Census of drug treatment admissions in California• Survey and drug test of a non random sample of
arrestees for three California cities • Monthly reported crimes and arrests in California by
jurisdiction
Figure 1: Methamphetamine Prices and Purity in California
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Jan-94 Jun-94 Dec-94 Jun-95 Dec-95 Jun-96 Dec-96 Jun-97 Dec-97
Month
Pric
es a
nd P
urity
Price per Gram
Purity
Figure 2: Methamphetamine Purity by Size of Acquisition in California
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Jan-94 Jun-94 Dec-94 Jun-95 Dec-95 Jun-96 Dec-96 Jun-97 Dec-97
Month
Pur
ity
0-1 Grams
1-10 Grams
10-100 Grams
Over 100 Grams
Figure 3: Methamphetamine Related Hospital and Drug Treatment Center Admissions
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Jan-94 Jul-94 Jan-95 Jul-95 Jan-96 Jul-96 Jan-97 Jul-97
Month
Cou
nt o
f Adm
issi
ons
Per
Mon
th
Treatment Admissions
Hospital Admissions
Figure 4: Drug Treatment Center Admissions for Methamphetamine by Route of Drug Administration
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Jan-94 Jul-94 Jan-95 Jul-95 Jan-96 Jul-96 Jan-97 Jul-97
Month of admission
Adm
issi
on p
er m
onth
Oral
Inhaled
Injected
Figure 5A: Cocaine and Heroin Prices in California
0
40
80
120
160
200
Jan-94 Jun-94 Dec-94 Jun-95 Dec-95 Jun-96 Dec-96 Jun-97 Dec-97
Month
Pric
e pe
r G
ram
Cocaine Price California
Heroin Price California
Figure 5B: Purity of Cocaine and Heroin in California
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Jan-94 Jun-94 Dec-94 Jun-95 Dec-95 Jun-96 Dec-96 Jun-97 Dec-97
Month
Pur
ity
Cocaine Purity California
Heroin Purity California
Figure 6B: Regional Cocaine Purity
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Jan-94 Jun-94 Dec-94 Jun-95 Dec-95 Jun-96 Dec-96 Jun-97 Dec-97
Month
Pur
ity
Cocaine Purity Northeast
Cocaine Purity Midwest
Cocaine Purity South
Cocaine Purity West
Figure 7: Hospital and Drug Treatment Admissions in California
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Jan-94 Jul-94 Jan-95 Jul-95 Jan-96 Jul-96 Jan-97 Jul-97
Month
Ad
mis
sio
ns
Pe
r M
on
th
Hospital Heroin (Opioid)
Hospital Cocaine
Treatment Heroin (-5000)
Treatment Cocaine
Amphetamine Hospital
Admissions
Methamphetamine
Treatment Admissions
Cocaine Hospital
Admissions
Cocaine and Crack
Treatment Admissions
Opioid Hospital
Admissions
Heroin Treatment
Admissions1.1718 0.4254 0.1551 0.0506 -0.1392 -0.1928
[0.1050] [0.1259] [0.0619] [0.0651] [0.0383] [0.0662]-0.0429 0.0152 -0.0314 -0.0354 0.0056 0.0157[0.0327] [0.0368] [0.0195] [0.0181] [0.0126] [0.0175]
Constant 6.3613 7.343 7.3836 7.5422 7.223 9.0012[0.2931] [0.3900] [0.1749] [0.1944] [0.1131] [0.1718]
Observations 47 47 47 47 47 47R-squared 0.86 0.59 0.82 0.68 0.8 0.82
Table 2A: Hospital and Drug Treatment Center Admissions in California
Notes: Regressions are on statewide outcomes by month for 1994 to 1997. The outcomes are in logs. All the regressions include time trends, month dummies, and cocaine and heroin prices and purity.
Purity MethamphetamineLog Price Methamphetamine
The Intervention is Associated with Temporary Changes in Prices, Purity, and
Adverse Health Outcomes• There was a large though temporary increase in prices
– Price increased from $40 to $100 – Prices returned to pre-intervention levels within four months
• There was an enormous and somewhat longer-term impact on purity – Purity declined from 90% to 20%– Purity required 18 months to recover to near pre-intervention
levels• There was a substantial decline in adverse health
outcomes associated with methamphetamine– Amphetamine-related hospitalizations declined by 50%– Methamphetamine-related treatment admissions declined by
35%– Changes in health outcomes track the purity rather than prices
Drug Testing Revealed All Arrests Property Crime Violent Crime Drug Arrests Marijuana 0.34 0.36 0.32 0.36 Cocaine 0.26 0.29 0.17 0.41 Opiates 0.07 0.08 0.03 0.10 Methamphetamine 0.17 0.14 0.12 0.32Survey Reported Methamphetamine Use Last 72 Hours 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.20 Last 30 Days 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.28 Have used ever 0.30 0.26 0.23 0.44 Times in Last Month if > 0 11.03 11.31 9.04 12.54Spent Some Money on Drugs in Last Month 0.32 0.35 0.21 0.49At Time of Arrest Under Influence of Drugs or Alcohol 0.28 0.23 0.27 0.36 Need Drugs or Alcohol 0.08 0.09 0.04 0.12Monthly Income and Spending Percent Reporting Legal Income 0.73 0.71 0.81 0.79 Percent Reporting Illegal Income 0.15 0.19 0.07 0.22 Legal Income 771 647 1,073 696 Illegal Income 275 343 123 416 Money Spent on Drugs 124 167 53 152Observations 16,584 6,231 3,838 2,998
Table 1A: Drug Use and Sources of Income by Type of Crime in San Diego, Los Angeles and San Jose 1994-1997
Note: The drug test used is EMIT screening which is known to be sensitive to false positives. Positive methamphetamine tests are confirmed using gas chromatography. Tests will pick up cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine use in the 3-5 days prior to the test. Arrestees are tested within 48 hours of arrest.
Figure 8A: Methamphetamine Use Among Arrestees in San Diego, Los Angeles and San Jose (Regression Adjusted and Smoothed)
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
Jan-94 Jul-94 Jan-95 Jul-95 Jan-96 Jul-96 Jan-97 Jul-97
Month
Per
cent
of A
rres
tees
Usi
ng
Positive Urine TestReported Use in Last 72 HoursReported Use in Last 30 DaysEver Used
Figure 8B: Positive Methamphetamine Test Among Arrestees in San Diego, Los Angeles and San Jose by Crime Type (Regression Adjusted and Smoothed)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Feb-94 Aug-94 Feb-95 Aug-95 Feb-96 Aug-96 Feb-97 Aug-97
Month
Pro
port
ion
with
Pos
itive
Urin
e T
est f
or M
etha
mph
etam
ines
Drug Arrests
Violent Crime
Property Crime
Other Crimes
Figure 8C: Proportion of Arrestees Reporting Ever Having Used Methamphetamine in San Diego, Los Angeles and San Jose by Crime Type (Regression Adjusted and Smoothed)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Feb-94 Aug-94 Feb-95 Aug-95 Feb-96 Aug-96 Feb-97 Aug-97
Month
Pro
port
ion
with
Pos
itive
Urin
e T
est f
or M
etha
mph
etam
ines
Drug Arrests
Violent Crime
Property Crime
Other Crimes
All Arrestees
Reported Ever Using
Methamphetamine
Reported Using Methamphetamine in the Last Month
Positive Urine Test for
MethamphetaminePositive Urine Test Marijuana 0.34 0.36 0.36 0.34 Methamphetamine 0.17 0.42 0.68 1.00 Cocaine 0.26 0.21 0.14 0.13 Opiates 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.06Reported Use in Last Month Marijuana 0.41 0.57 0.67 0.56 Methamphetamine 0.15 0.50 1.00 0.59 Cocaine 0.10 0.14 0.15 0.09 Opiates 0.04 0.08 0.07 0.04Reported Ever Using Marijuana 0.77 0.97 0.96 0.93 Methamphetamine 0.30 1.00 1.00 0.75 Cocaine 0.40 0.72 0.71 0.62 Opiates 0.12 0.26 0.24 0.18Arrestees 16,584 4,971 2,462 2,799
Table 3: Poly Drug Use Among Methamphetamine Users
Notes: These are computed from a sample of arrestees in San Diego, Los Angeles and San Jose for the 1994 to 1997 period
Figure 8D: Positive Drug Test Among Arrestees in San Diego, Los Angeles and San Jose Who Report Ever Having Used Methamphetamine
(Regression Adjusted and Smoothed)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Feb-94 Aug-94 Feb-95 Aug-95 Feb-96 Aug-96 Feb-97 Aug-97
Pro
po
rtio
n T
es
tin
g P
os
itiv
e
Methamphetamine Positive
Cocaine Positive
Opiates Positive
Some Evidence of Substitution to Other Drugs
• Poly drug use is high among arrestees– Methamphetamine users also use cocaine, heroin and marijuana
• There is some evidence that some methamphetamine users are switching to cocaine and heroin – Decline in cocaine purity– Increase in positive cocaine and heroin tests among arrestees
who reported ever using methamphetamine
• Still a very large overall reduction in drug use
There is Evidence of an Association Between Methamphetamine Use and Crime
• Drug use is common among people arrested for property crime, violent crime and drug crimes
• Proportion of arrestees testing positive for methamphetamine for all three crime categories drops as a result of the intervention.
• How a reduction in methamphetamine supply might impact crime rates is not clear– Property crime may rise or fall depending on the price elasticity
of consumption– Violent crime due to the pharmacological effects of
methamphetamine may fall– Violent crime due to the enforcement of property rights may rise
or fall– Drug crimes such as possession are likely to fall as there are
fewer transactions to conduct
Figure 9: Reported Property Crime in California
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
Jan-94 Jul-94 Jan-95 Jul-95 Jan-96 Jul-96 Jan-97 Jul-97
Months
Larc
eny
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
MV
The
ft, R
obbe
ry a
nd B
urg
lary
Burglary
Larceny
MV Theft
Robbery
Figure 10: Reported Violent Crimes in California
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Jan-94 Jul-94 Jan-95 Jul-95 Jan-96 Jul-96 Jan-97 Jul-97
Month
Mon
thly
Rep
orte
d H
omic
ides
and
Rap
es
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Mon
thly
rep
orte
d A
ssau
lts
Homicide
Rape
Assault
Burglary Larceny MV Theft Rape Robbery Homicide Assault0.0829 0.0015 0.1364 -0.1119 -0.2022 -0.2201 -0.0399
[0.0384] [0.0343] [0.0381] [0.0483] [0.0361] [0.1098] [0.0585]-0.0079 0.0005 -0.0061 -0.0002 0.0171 0.0217 -0.0028[0.0082] [0.0088] [0.0120] [0.0149] [0.0090] [0.0233] [0.0132]
Constant 10.2572 11.2437 10.0183 6.6448 9.1776 5.7663 9.5432[0.0935] [0.1144] [0.1291] [0.1898] [0.0937] [0.2277] [0.1505]
Observations 47 47 47 47 47 47 47R-squared 0.96 0.91 0.95 0.82 0.97 0.85 0.89
Table 2B: Reported Property and Violent Crime in California
Notes: Regressions are on statewide outcomes by month for 1994 to 1997. The outcomes are in logs. All the regressions include time trends, month dummies, and cocaine and heroin prices and purity.
Log Price Methamphetamine
Purity Methamphetamine
Figure 11A: Felony Drug Arrests in California
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
15-Jan-94 15-Jul-94 15-Jan-95 15-Jul-95 15-Jan-96 15-Jul-96 15-Jan-97 15-Jul-97
Da
ng
ero
us
Dru
gs,
Na
rco
tics
an
d M
arij
ua
na
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Oth
er
Dru
g L
aw
s
Felony Dangerous Drugs
Felony Marijuana
Felony Narcotics
Felony Other Drug Laws
Figure 11B: Misdemeanor Drug Arrests in California
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
15-Jan-94 15-Jul-94 15-Jan-95 15-Jul-95 15-Jan-96 15-Jul-96 15-Jan-97 15-Jul-97
Glu
e S
niff
ing
an
d D
an
ge
rou
s D
rug
s
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Ma
riju
an
a a
nd
Oth
er
Dru
g L
aw
s
Misdemeanor Dangerous Drugs
Glue Sniffing
Misdemeanor Marijuana
Misdemeanor Other Drug Laws
Felony Narcotics
Felony Dangerous
DrugsFelony
MarijuanaFelony Other Drug Laws
Misdemeanor Dangerous
DrugsMisdemeanor Glue Sniffing
Misdemeanor Marijuana
Misdemeanor Other Drug
Laws0.0672 1.1263 -0.2207 -0.3034 -0.4787 -0.3716 -0.3134 0.4806
[0.0672] [0.1117] [0.0746] [0.1660] [0.1898] [0.1421] [0.0532] [0.0563]-0.0648 -0.0706 -0.0179 -0.0167 -0.0205 -0.0699 0.0214 -0.0207[0.0383] [0.0316] [0.0229] [0.0360] [0.0508] [0.0386] [0.0163] [0.0174]
Constant 8.8729 7.8748 7.3756 6.0031 5.7065 5.1805 8.0762 8.3122[0.2787] [0.2748] [0.1968] [0.3251] [0.4669] [0.3926] [0.1835] [0.1330]
Observations 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47R-squared 0.69 0.85 0.73 0.88 0.46 0.7 0.95 0.85Notes: Regressions are on statewide outcomes by month for 1994 to 1997. The outcomes are in logs. All the regressions include time trends, month dummies, and cocaine and heroin prices and purity.
Table 2C: Drug Arrests in California
Purity MethamphetamineLog Price Methamphetamine
Figure 12: Amphetamine Hospitalizations Rate by Amphetamine Hospitalization Rate of County
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Jan-94 Jul-94 Jan-95 Jul-95 Jan-96 Jul-96 Jan-97 Jul-97
Month
Adm
issi
ons
Per
Mon
th P
er 1
0K R
esid
ents
0 - 0.33 Admissions Per Month Per 10K Residents
0.33 - 0.51 Admissions Per Month Per 10K Residents
0.51 - 1.15 Admissions Per Month Per 10K Residents
More than 1.15 Admissions Per Month Per 10K Residents
Figure 13A: Homicide Rate by Amphetamine Related Hospitalization Rate of County
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Jan-94 Jul-94 Jan-95 Jul-95 Jan-96 Jul-96 Jan-97 Jul-97
Month
Crim
es P
er M
onth
Per
10K
Res
iden
ts
0 - 0.33 Admissions Per Month Per 10K Residents
0.33 - 0.51 Admissions Per Month Per 10K Residents
0.51 - 1.15 Admissions Per Month Per 10K Residents
More than 1.15 Admissions Per Month Per 10K Residents
Figure 13B: Larceny Rate by Amphetamine Related Hospitalization Rate of County
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Jan-94 Jul-94 Jan-95 Jul-95 Jan-96 Jul-96 Jan-97 Jul-97
Month
Crim
es P
er M
onth
Per
10K
Res
iden
ts
0 - 0.33 Admissions Per Month Per 10K Residents
0.33 - 0.51 Admissions Per Month Per 10K Residents
0.51 - 1.15 Admissions Per Month Per 10K Residents
More than 1.15 Admissions Per Month Per 10K Residents
Burglary Larceny MV Theft Rape Robbery Homicide Assaults0.379 1.095 0.402 -0.008 -0.032 0.008 -0.071[0.244] [0.518] [0.212] [0.016] [0.077] [0.005] [0.179]-0.291 -1.391 0.113 0.006 -0.064 -0.002 0.059[0.311] [0.996] [0.401] [0.031] [0.191] [0.011] [0.183]0.057 -0.752 -0.245 0.008 -0.001 -0.011 -0.022[0.376] [0.457] [0.391] [0.021] [0.076] [0.007] [0.144]
Observations 2,784 2,784 2,784 2,784 2,784 2,784 2,784R-squared 0.91 0.93 0.90 0.44 0.96 0.57 0.84
Notes: All regressions are at the county level by month. The regressions include county fixed effects, year effects, month dummies, proportion black and Hispanic in county and the proportion in various age categories. The regressions are weighted by county population age 15 to 44. The regressions include all California counties between 1994 and 1997.
Rate Amphetamine AdmissionsRate Cocaine AdmissionsRate Opioid Admissions
Table 3A: County Level Crime Rates Regressed on County Level Hospital Admissions Rates
Felony Narcotics
Felony Dangerous
DrugsFelony Other
Drugs Felony MJ
Misdemeanor Dangerous
Drugs
Misdemeanor Other Drug
LawsMisdemeanor Glue Sniffing
Misdemeanor Marijuana
0.019 0.740 -0.010 -0.020 -0.007 0.554 -0.023 -0.102[0.051] [0.102] [0.020] [0.028] [0.012] [0.131] [0.015] [0.042]0.339 -0.055 0.081 -0.061 -0.043 0.133 0.007 -0.046[0.184] [0.136] [0.038] [0.037] [0.048] [0.210] [0.017] [0.059]0.023 -0.146 0.018 0.096 -0.005 -0.140 -0.022 0.073[0.107] [0.125] [0.025] [0.036] [0.014] [0.126] [0.020] [0.067]
Observations 2,784 2,784 2,784 2,784 2,784 2,784 2,784 2,784R-squared 0.91 0.84 0.71 0.68 0.65 0.80 0.45 0.58
Table 3B: County Level Arrest Rates Regressed on County Level Hospital Admissions Rates
Notes: All regressions are at the county level by month. The regressions include county fixed effects, year effects, month dummies, proportion black and Hispanic in county and the proportion in various age categories. The regressions are weighted by county population age 15 to 44. The regressions include all California counties between 1994 and 1997.
Rate Amphetamine AdmissionsRate Cocaine AdmissionsRate Opioid Admissions
Figure 14: Purity and Health and Crime Outcomes
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Jan-94 Jul-94 Jan-95 Jul-95 Jan-96 Jul-96 Jan-97 Jul-97
Month
Arr
ests
, Hos
pita
l Adm
issi
ons
and
Tre
atm
ent A
dmis
sion
s pe
r M
onth
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cent
Pur
ity, P
erce
nt o
f Arr
este
es T
estin
g P
ositi
ve F
or
Met
ham
phet
amin
e
Treatment Admissions
Hospital Admissions
Felony Dangerous Drugs
Misdemeanor Other Drug Laws
Arrestee Positive Test
Purity
The 1995 DEA Intervention Had a Large, Temporary Impact on Adverse Outcomes
• Price jumped from $40 per gram to $100 per gram and Purity declined from 90% to 20%
• Hospital admissions for methamphetamine declined by 50%
• Treatment admissions for methamphetamine declined by 35%
• Methamphetamine use declined by 55% among arrestees and some arrestees switched to cocaine and heroin.
• Felony arrests for “Dangerous Drugs” declined by 50%• Misdemeanor arrests for “Other Drug Laws” declined by
25%• The decrease in methamphetamine availability may have
reduced larcenies and motor vehicle thefts• No discernable reduction in violent crime
Conclusions
• Supply interdictions can reduce the rates of adverse health outcomes
• A reduction in drug supply will result in a reduction in the number of drug arrests
• Supply interdictions may reduce some property crimes – specifically larceny and motor vehicle thefts.
• Lack of a significant change in violent crime suggests either: methamphetamine consumption does not cause large amounts of violent crime or that interdiction is not an effective way of reducing violent crime associated with methamphetamine use.
• Despite this enormous success on the part of DEA the supply of methamphetamine recovered fairly rapidly.