The impact of law enforcement activity on a heroin market

Abstract

It may be argued that seizing large quantities of heroin being imported into the country should decrease its supply and hence increase its price, resulting in a reduction in the quantity of the drug being purchased or consumed. To date, however, there has been no empirical evidence that heroin seizures in Australia have any effect on the price of heroin at street level. This article describes a 2-year research study during which the price and purity of street-level heroin were regularly monitored. It was found that heroin seizures had no effect on the price, purity or perceived availability of heroin at street level. It was further found that admissions to methadone treatment were not affected by the price or perceived availability of heroin or by local arrests for heroin use/possession, nor was any relationship found between these arrests and the price of street-level heroin. Nevertheless, two-thirds of those who sought entry to local methadone programmes indicated the price as a reason for stopping using heroin. This paper argues that supply-side law enforcement should only be used as a strategy for maintaining high heroin prices if the demand for heroin can be shown to be price-elastic and, further, that the costs of such a strategy need to be weighted against the benefits.

Does tougher enforcement make drugs more expensive?

“…All but two of the studies reported cover cocaine; heroin is the exclusive focus of Weatherburn & Lind [35], and is included along with cocaine in Yuan & Caulkins [34]. The time-periods covered stretch from the early 1980s to approximately 2010.…”

Human rights abuses and suicidal ideation among male injecting drug users in Delhi, India

“…A recent systematic review revealed the effects of denial of harm reduction services, law enforcement practices, and discriminatory access to ART on vulnerability to HIV and service access (Jurgens et al, 2010). For instance, police presence and harassment in the vicinity of needle exchange programs have been found to lead to decreased attendance at voluntary treatment programmes and needle exchange sites, increased needle sharing, unsafe injecting and improper disposal of needles (Rhodes et al, 2005; Rhodes et al, 2003; Aitken et al, 2002; Blankenship & Koester, 2002); Best et al, 2001; Maher and Dixon, 1999; Weatherburn and Lind, 1997; Bluthenthal et al, 1999). These factors have been found to increase the likelihood of IDUs in acquiring HIV infection (Broadhead et al, 1999).…”

The Impact of Human Rights Violations and Perceptions of Discrimination on Health Service Utilization Among Injection Drug Users in Delhi, India

“…This situation violates the right against arbitrary arrest as granted in Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the ICCPR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 1976), to which India is a signatory. Studies in other regions of the world indicate that intense enforcement drives IDUs underground (Aitken et al, 2002;Bastos & Strathdee, 2000;Best et al, 2001;Bluthenthal et al, 1999;Darke et al, 2002;Davis, Burris, Kraut-Becher, Lynch, & Metzger, 2005;Maher & Dixon, 1999;Rhodes et al, 2003;Rhodes, Singer, Bourgois, Friedman, & Strathdee, 2005;Weatherburn & Lind, 1997). Low utilization of services as a result of being arrested by the police for carrying needles has been echoed in several previous studies (Aitken et al, 2002;Callon et al, 2006;Grund, Stern, Kaplan, Adriaans, & Drucker, 1992;Maher & Dixon, 1999;Wood et al, 2003).…”

“…Much of this success can be attributed to the ability of these programs to function without governmental restrictions or police intervention. Evidence shows that police activities indeed result in decreased uptake of voluntary drug user treatment and needle exchange services, increases in needle sharing, unsafe injecting, and improper disposal of needles (Aitken, Higgs, Kersall, & Kerger, 2002;Best, Beswick, & Gossop, 2001;Bluthenthal, Kral, Erringer, & Edlin, 1999;Darke, Topp, Kaye, & Hall, 2002;Maher & Dixon, 1999;Rhodes et al, 2003;Weatherburn & Lind, 1997). While most of this evidence comes from higher-income country settings, there is not much known about the impact of harsh drug control measures on the use of services in lower-and middle-income settings with injection-driven HIV epidemics.…”