NCJ Number
115198
Date Published
1986
Length
41 pages
Annotation
There is now theory as well as data to suggest that the de-emphasis on targeting drug retailing was a mistake, that street-level enforcement compares favorably with high-level enforcement as a target for the drug squad and with 911 response as a task for the uniformed force.
Abstract
This conclusion is supported by case studies of the nature and effects of street-level drug crackdowns, with particular attention to efforts in Lynn, Mass. The four purposes of retail drug enforcement are to maintain order, improve relations between the police and the community, suppress drug consumption, and reduce property crime. Any drug dealing which destabilizes a neighborhood may be worth breaking up. Whether such enforcement action depresses consumption will depend on the extent of the drug dealing and how easily users can switch from buying small quantities frequently to buying in bulk occasionally. Whether enforcement reduces property crime depends both on its ability to reduce consumption and on the share of consumption financed by such crime. The fact that cocaine is now being detected in the urine of about half of all arrested persons in New York City and Washington, D.C., suggests a closer cocaine-crime link than many had suspected. The disruption of street marijuana dealing is not likely to impact consumption significantly, since marijuana is cheap enough to buy in bulk, and users are less likely to consume their entire supply at one sitting.