The effect of a local drug enforcement program on the availability of illicit drugs is
evaluated. Using a variety of data-collection techniques, change in drug availability is
measured and linked to the direct outputs of the enforcement program. Factors other
than the program that might have caused changes in availability are considered.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Berg, D. F. (1970) Illicit Use of Dangerous Drugs in the United States: A Compilation of Studies, Surveys, and Polls. Washington, DC: Drug Sciences Division, Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.
2.
Blackford, L. St. C. (1972) Do High School Students Who Use LSD Tend To Avoid Alcoholic Beverages? San Mateo, CA: County Department of Health and Welfare .
3.
Boykin, R. A. (1973) Attitudes Concerning the Relative Seriousness of Abusing Different Drugs: Results of Penny-Stacking Exercise. Chapel Hill: Institute of Government, University of North Carolina .
4.
BROWN, B. S. et al. (1971) " In their own words: addicts' reasons for initiating and withdrawing from heroin." Int. J. of the Addictions6: 635-645.
5.
Cahalan, D. and I. H. Cisin (1968) "American drinking practices: summary of findings from a national probability sample. I. Extent of drinking by population sub-groups." Q. J. of Studies of Alcohol29: 130-152.
6.
Campbell, D. T. and J. C. Stanley (1963) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
7.
Epstein, E. J. (1974) "Methadone: the forlorn hope." Public Interest36: 3-24.
8.
GERSTEL, E. et al. (1973) The Effectiveness of the Mecklenburg County Alcohol Safety Action Project . Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.
9.
Horvitz, D. G. (1975) "Recent developments in randomized response design," in J. N. Srivastava (ed.) A Survey of Statistical Design and Linear Models. New York: Elsevier .
10.
Inciardi, J. A. and C. D. Chambers (1972) "Self-reported criminal behavior of narcotic addicts." J. of Drug Issues2: 57-64.
11.
Joint Committee on New York Drug Law Evaluation ( 1978) The Nation's Toughest Drug Law: Evaluating the New York Experience. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
12.
Levin, I. (forthcoming) "Quantitative research and the development of drug abuse policy," in I. Levin (ed.) Quantitative Explorations in Drug Abuse Policy . New York: Spectrum.
13.
Locander, W. et al. (1976) " An investigation of interview method, threat and response distortion." J. of the Amer. Statistical Association71: 269-275.
14.
Mecklenburg Criminal Justice Pilot Project ( 1972) Relative Seriousness of Criminal Justice Problems as Seen by Various Groups in Charlotte-Mecklenburg. Chapel Hill: Institute of Goverment, University of North Carolina.
15.
Moore, M. H. (1977) Buy and Bust—the Effective Regulation of an Illicit Market in Heroin. Lexington, MA: Lexingtan.
16.
——— (1971) Economics of Heroin Distribution. Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
17.
——— (1973) "Policies to achieve discrimination on the effective price of heroin." Amer. Economics Rev.63: 270-277.
18.
Stephens, R. (1972) "The truthfulness of addict respondents in research projects." Int. J. of the Addictions7: 549-58.
19.
Strauss, R. P. and G. D. Hughes (1976) "A new approach to the demand for public goods." J. of Public Economics6: 191-204.
20.
Whitehead, P. C. and R. G. Smart (1972) "Validity and reliability of self-reported drug use." Canadian J. of Criminology and Corrections14: 83-89.
