Drug policy making is the central focus of this analy sis To date, this process has been plagued by some well-known dy sfunctional aspects of public administration This article considers the experience of one state, Kentucky, under the Federal government's new dmg policy initiatives to demonstrate the nature of this policy-making process
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abadinsky, H. (1989). Drug abuse. An introduction. ChicagoNelson-Hall.
2.
DeFalaise, L., & Whittle, J.M. (1989) Summary of report on narcotics trafficking for the eastern and western districts of Kentucky A report submitted to the Attorney General of the United States
3.
Diegelman, R.F. (1982). Federal financial assistance for crime control . Lessons of the LEAA experience Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 73, 994-1011.
4.
Feeley, M.M., & Sarat, A.D. (1980) The policy dilemma Federal crime control policy and the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 1968-1978Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Hamm, M.S. (1988). Drug policy and applied research: A study of users, abusers and politicians. Journal of Crime and Justice, 11, 103-121.
7.
Kentucky Justice Cabinet (1987) Commonwealth of Kentucky. Statewide drug enforcement strategy and applicationFrankfort, KY. Author.
8.
Kentucky Justice Cabinet (1989). Commonwealth of Kentucky Statewide drug and violent crime strategyFrankfort, KY: Author.
9.
Lindblom, C.E. (1959). The science of muddling throughPublic Administration Review, 19, 79-99.
10.
_ ( 1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review, 39, 517-524.
11.
Miller, W.B. (1973). Ideology and criminal justice policy: Some current issues. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 64, 141-162.
12.
Police Executive Research Forum (1989). Taking a problem-oriented approach to drug enforcement. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Assistance.
13.
Potter, G., Gaines, L., & Holbrook, B. (1990). Blowing smoke. An evaluation of marijuana eradication in Kentucky. American Journal of Police, 9,97-116.
14.
Schick, A. (1969). Systems politics and systems budgetingPublic Administration Review, 29, 137-151.
15.
Stolz, B.A. (1984) Decarceration in Massasschusetts. A study in disjointed incrementalism. Criminal Justice Review, 9, 53-62.
16.
Suchman, E.A. (1967). Evaluative research Principles and practice in public service and social action programsNew YorkRussell Sage Foundation.
17.
Tieman, C.R. & Tolone, W.L. (1989, April). Career drug use, dclinquency and victimization . Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Washington, DC.
18.
White House (1989) National drug control strategyWashington, DC. U.S. Government Printing Office.
