Transcript The War on Drugs Public Health 10

The War on Drugs:
Methamphetamine, Public Health and Crime
Carlos Dobkin, Nancy Nicosia
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
350,000
Amphetamines
Cocaine
Heroin
300,000
250,000
Count
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Drug Treatment Admissions for Amphetamines
100,000
Midwest
90,000
Northeast
South
West
80,000
70,000
Count
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
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
120
100
Prices and Purity
80
60
40
20
0
Jan-94
Price per Gram
Purity
Jun-94
Dec-94
Jun-95
Dec-95
Month
Jun-96
Dec-96
Jun-97
Dec-97
Figure 2: Methamphetamine Purity by Size of Acquisition in California
120
0-1 Grams
1-10 Grams
10-100 Grams
100
Over 100 Grams
Purity
80
60
40
20
0
Jan-94
Jun-94
Dec-94
Jun-95
Dec-95
Month
Jun-96
Dec-96
Jun-97
Dec-97
Figure 3: Methamphetamine Related Hospital and Drug Treatment Center Admissions
3500
3000
Count of Admissions Per Month
2500
2000
1500
1000
Treatment Admissions
Hospital Admissions
500
0
Jan-94
Jul-94
Jan-95
Jul-95
Jan-96
Month
Jul-96
Jan-97
Jul-97
Figure 4: Drug Treatment Center Admissions for Methamphetamine by Route of Drug Administration
2,500
Oral
Inhaled
Injected
Admission per month
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Jan-94
Jul-94
Jan-95
Jul-95
Jan-96
Month of admission
Jul-96
Jan-97
Jul-97
Figure 5A: Cocaine and Heroin Prices in California
200
Cocaine Price California
Heroin Price California
Price per Gram
160
120
80
40
0
Jan-94
Jun-94
Dec-94
Jun-95
Dec-95
Month
Jun-96
Dec-96
Jun-97
Dec-97
Figure 5B: Purity of Cocaine and Heroin in California
100
Cocaine Purity California
Heroin Purity California
90
80
70
Purity
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Jan-94
Jun-94
Dec-94
Jun-95
Dec-95
Month
Jun-96
Dec-96
Jun-97
Dec-97
Figure 6B: Regional Cocaine Purity
100
Cocaine Purity Northeast
Cocaine Purity Midwest
90
Cocaine Purity South
Cocaine Purity West
80
70
Purity
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Jan-94
Jun-94
Dec-94
Jun-95
Dec-95
Month
Jun-96
Dec-96
Jun-97
Dec-97
Figure 7: Hospital and Drug Treatment Admissions in California
3500
3000
Admissions Per Month
2500
2000
1500
1000
Hospital Heroin (Opioid)
Hospital Cocaine
Treatment Heroin (-5000)
Treatment Cocaine
500
0
Jan-94
Jul-94
Jan-95
Jul-95
Jan-96
Month
Jul-96
Jan-97
Jul-97
Table 2A: Hospital and Drug Treatment Center Admissions in California
Methampheta
Cocaine and
Amphetamine
mine
Cocaine
Crack
Opioid
Heroin
Hospital
Treatment
Hospital
Treatment
Hospital
Treatment
Admissions
Admissions
Admissions
Admissions
Admissions
Admissions
Purity
1.1718
0.4254
0.1551
0.0506
-0.1392
-0.1928
Methamphetamine
[0.1050]
[0.1259]
[0.0619]
[0.0651]
[0.0383]
[0.0662]
Log Price
-0.0429
0.0152
-0.0314
-0.0354
0.0056
0.0157
Methamphetamine
[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
47
R-squared
0.86
0.59
0.82
0.68
0.8
0.82
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.
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
Table 1A: Drug Use and Sources of Income by Type of Crime in San Diego, Los Angeles and San Jose 1994-1997
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
0.32
Survey 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
12.54
Spent Some Money on Drugs in Last Month
0.32
0.35
0.21
0.49
At 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
0.12
Monthly 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
152
Observations
16,584
6,231
3,838
2,998
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)
0.4
Positive Urine Test
Reported Use in Last 72 Hours
Reported Use in Last 30 Days
Ever Used
0.35
Percent of Arrestees Using
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Jan-94
Jul-94
Jan-95
Jul-95
Jan-96
Month
Jul-96
Jan-97
Jul-97
Figure 8B: Positive Methamphetamine Test Among Arrestees in San Diego, Los Angeles and San Jose by
Crime Type (Regression Adjusted and Smoothed)
Proportion with Positive Urine Test for Methamphetamines
0.6
Drug Arrests
Violent Crime
Property Crime
Other Crimes
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Feb-94
Aug-94
Feb-95
Aug-95
Feb-96
Month
Aug-96
Feb-97
Aug-97
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)
Proportion with Positive Urine Test for Methamphetamines
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Drug Arrests
Violent Crime
Property Crime
Other Crimes
0.1
0
Feb-94
Aug-94
Feb-95
Aug-95
Feb-96
Month
Aug-96
Feb-97
Aug-97
Table 3: Poly Drug Use Among Methamphetamine Users
All Arrestees
Reported Ever
Reported Using
Positive Urine Test
Using
Methamphetamine
for
Methamphetamine in the Last Month Methamphetamine
Positive 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
0.06
Reported 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
0.04
Reported 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
0.18
Arrestees
16,584
4,971
2,462
2,799
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)
0.6
Methamphetamine Positive
Cocaine Positive
Opiates Positive
0.5
Proportion Testing Positive
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Feb-94
Aug-94
Feb-95
Aug-95
Feb-96
Aug-96
Feb-97
Aug-97
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
90000
30000
Burglary
Larceny
MV Theft
Robbery
80000
25000
Larceny
60000
20000
50000
15000
40000
30000
10000
20000
5000
10000
0
Jan-94
0
Jul-94
Jan-95
Jul-95
Jan-96
Months
Jul-96
Jan-97
Jul-97
MV Theft, Robbery and Burglary
70000
Figure 10: Reported Violent Crimes in California
30,000
Homicide
Rape
Assault
Monthly Reported Homicides and Rapes
1,000
25,000
800
20,000
600
15,000
400
10,000
200
5,000
0
Jan-94
0
Jul-94
Jan-95
Jul-95
Jan-96
Month
Jul-96
Jan-97
Jul-97
Monthly reported Assaults
1,200
Table 2B: Reported Property and Violent Crime in California
Burglary
Larceny
MV Theft
Rape
Robbery
Homicide
Assault
Purity
0.0829
0.0015
0.1364
-0.1119
-0.2022
-0.2201
-0.0399
Methamphetamine
[0.0384]
[0.0343]
[0.0381]
[0.0483]
[0.0361]
[0.1098]
[0.0585]
Log Price
-0.0079
0.0005
-0.0061
-0.0002
0.0171
0.0217
-0.0028
Methamphetamine
[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
47
R-squared
0.96
0.91
0.95
0.82
0.97
0.85
0.89
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.
Figure 11A: Felony Drug Arrests in California
8,000
500
450
7,000
6,000
350
5,000
300
4,000
250
Felony Dangerous Drugs
Felony Marijuana
Felony Narcotics
3,000
200
150
Felony Other Drug Laws
2,000
100
1,000
50
0
15-Jan-94
0
15-Jul-94
15-Jan-95
15-Jul-95
15-Jan-96
15-Jul-96
15-Jan-97
15-Jul-97
Other Drug Laws
Dangerous Drugs, Narcotics and Marijuana
400
Figure 11B: Misdemeanor Drug Arrests in California
300
9,000
8,000
250
200
6,000
5,000
150
4,000
100
3,000
Misdemeanor Dangerous Drugs
Glue Sniffing
50
2,000
Misdemeanor Marijuana
Misdemeanor Other Drug Laws
1,000
0
15-Jan-94
0
15-Jul-94
15-Jan-95
15-Jul-95
15-Jan-96
15-Jul-96
15-Jan-97
15-Jul-97
Marijuana and Other Drug Laws
Glue Sniffing and Dangerous Drugs
7,000
Table 2C: Drug Arrests in California
Felony
Misdemeanor
Misdemeanor
Felony
Dangerous
Felony
Felony Other
Dangerous
Misdemeanor Misdemeanor
Other Drug
Narcotics
Drugs
Marijuana
Drug Laws
Drugs
Glue Sniffing
Marijuana
Laws
Purity
0.0672
1.1263
-0.2207
-0.3034
-0.4787
-0.3716
-0.3134
0.4806
Methamphetamine
[0.0672]
[0.1117]
[0.0746]
[0.1660]
[0.1898]
[0.1421]
[0.0532]
[0.0563]
Log Price
-0.0648
-0.0706
-0.0179
-0.0167
-0.0205
-0.0699
0.0214
-0.0207
Methamphetamine
[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
47
R-squared
0.69
0.85
0.73
0.88
0.46
0.7
0.95
0.85
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.
Figure 12: Amphetamine Hospitalizations Rate by Amphetamine Hospitalization Rate of County
2
0 - 0.33 Admissions Per Month Per 10K Residents
0.33 - 0.51 Admissions Per Month Per 10K Residents
1.8
0.51 - 1.15 Admissions Per Month Per 10K Residents
More than 1.15 Admissions Per Month Per 10K Residents
Admissions Per Month Per 10K Residents
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Jan-94
Jul-94
Jan-95
Jul-95
Jan-96
Month
Jul-96
Jan-97
Jul-97
Figure 13A: Homicide Rate by Amphetamine Related Hospitalization Rate of County
0.25
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
Crimes Per Month Per 10K Residents
0.2
More than 1.15 Admissions Per Month Per 10K Residents
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Jan-94
Jul-94
Jan-95
Jul-95
Jan-96
Month
Jul-96
Jan-97
Jul-97
Figure 13B: Larceny Rate by Amphetamine Related Hospitalization Rate of County
55
0 - 0.33 Admissions Per Month Per 10K Residents
0.33 - 0.51 Admissions Per Month Per 10K Residents
50
0.51 - 1.15 Admissions Per Month Per 10K Residents
Crimes Per Month Per 10K Residents
More than 1.15 Admissions Per Month Per 10K Residents
45
40
35
30
25
20
Jan-94
Jul-94
Jan-95
Jul-95
Jan-96
Month
Jul-96
Jan-97
Jul-97
Rate Amphetamine
Admissions
Rate Cocaine
Admissions
Rate Opioid
Admissions
Observations
R-squared
Table 3A: County Level Crime Rates Regressed on County Level Hospital Admissions Rates
Burglary
Larceny
MV Theft
Rape
Robbery
Homicide
0.379
1.095
0.402
-0.008
-0.032
0.008
[0.244]
[0.518]
[0.212]
[0.016]
[0.077]
[0.005]
-0.291
-1.391
0.113
0.006
-0.064
-0.002
[0.311]
[0.996]
[0.401]
[0.031]
[0.191]
[0.011]
0.057
-0.752
-0.245
0.008
-0.001
-0.011
[0.376]
[0.457]
[0.391]
[0.021]
[0.076]
[0.007]
2,784
2,784
2,784
2,784
2,784
2,784
0.91
0.93
0.90
0.44
0.96
0.57
Assaults
-0.071
[0.179]
0.059
[0.183]
-0.022
[0.144]
2,784
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.
Table 3B: County Level Arrest Rates Regressed on County Level Hospital Admissions Rates
Felony
Misdemeanor Misdemeanor
Felony
Dangerous
Felony Other
Dangerous
Other Drug
Misdemeanor Misdemeanor
Narcotics
Drugs
Drugs
Felony MJ
Drugs
Laws
Glue Sniffing
Marijuana
Rate Amphetamine
0.019
0.740
-0.010
-0.020
-0.007
0.554
-0.023
-0.102
Admissions
[0.051]
[0.102]
[0.020]
[0.028]
[0.012]
[0.131]
[0.015]
[0.042]
Rate Cocaine
0.339
-0.055
0.081
-0.061
-0.043
0.133
0.007
-0.046
Admissions
[0.184]
[0.136]
[0.038]
[0.037]
[0.048]
[0.210]
[0.017]
[0.059]
Rate Opioid
0.023
-0.146
0.018
0.096
-0.005
-0.140
-0.022
0.073
Admissions
[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
2,784
R-squared
0.91
0.84
0.71
0.68
0.65
0.80
0.45
0.58
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.
Figure 14: Purity and Health and Crime Outcomes
9,000
100
Treatment Admissions
Hospital Admissions
Misdemeanor Other Drug Laws
Arrestee Positive Test
80
Purity
7,000
70
6,000
60
5,000
50
4,000
40
3,000
30
2,000
20
1,000
0
Jan-94
10
0
Jul-94
Jan-95
Jul-95
Jan-96
Month
Jul-96
Jan-97
Jul-97
Percent Purity, Percent of Arrestees Testing Positive For
Methamphetamine
Arrests, Hospital Admissions and Treatment Admissions
per Month
90
Felony Dangerous Drugs
8,000
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.