User:Ph33rbenkthankslol/sandbox

History of Opium and it's derivates
In England, opium fulfilled a "critical" role, as it did other societies, in addressing multifactorial pain, cough, dysentery, diarrhea, as argued by Virginia Berridge. A medical panacea of the 19th century, "any respectable person" could purchase a range of hashish pastes and (later) morphine with complementary injection kit.

It is important to note that "recreational use" of opium was part of a civilized and mannered ritual prior to the extensive prohibitions that came later. In places of gathering, often tea shops, or a person's home servings of opium were offered as a form of greeting and politeness. often served with tea (in China) and with specific and fine utensils and beautifully carved wooden pipes. The wealthier the smoker, the finer and more expensive material used in ceremony. The image of seedy underground, destitute smokers were often generated by anti-opium narratives and became a more accurate image of opium use following the effects of large scale opium prohibition in the 1880s.

“Synthetic opioids” eg. fentanyl
When illustrating these characters who created these drugs, try to assign specific characteristics to make each one stand out.

US Domestic Policy: How we got here: A brief history on the control of substances FDA, first anti drug laws.
The evolution of those laws (under Nixon etc.).

Physiologic addiction
Addiction in society, does it get worse in poor economic climate?

Poverty of Spirit
- the role of displacement and lack of community (of the community found in outcasts)

How Public Education has evolved
The earliest prevention education programs focused on the immorality of drug use and highlighted and exaggerated to the point of dishonesty, the ill effects of drug use. It is debatable, as Klienman (2011) 79 says that these programs had a short lived positive effect.___ however, with the widespread use of cannabis, the previously exaggerated education undermined the credibility. ___this illustrates the dangers of simplistic, exaggerated messages to kids. If it does not reflect reality, children lose even more trust in the system. Taking this into consideration, the next phase of education according to Klienman (2011), was to give unbiased information regarding drugs. But this, according to Klienman (2011), had no effect on the discouraging use among youth. The next phase involved targeting self esteem and the spread of role playing to combat negative peer pressure. However, as Klienman (2011) pointed out, the youth who try drugs are often not pressured into it by bullies but friends and acquaintances. This involves a different aspect of peer preassure_____

In late 1990s, more focus on “comprehensive approaches” such as Life Skills and Project ALERT.

A example Klienman (2011) highlights, Ois that, like Sex ___, students typically overestimated drug use prevelance among their peers, so providing objective information highlighting the normalancy of nonuse was thought to help reinforce it.

It is debatable, if that premise held true at the time of initiation?___

Another consideration is that teens often may be driven to do something precisely to be different than the group of peers that they do not identify with???

One example of these comprehensive approaches is the Good Behavior Game (GBG), originally developed in the 1960s. It was designed team-based elementary school behavior management strategy designed to help students master the classroom skills of sitting still, paying attention and completing homework. The strategy can be summarized as a game, the classroom, divided into small teams that compete for four or fewer infractions within a time window. All teams can win (because they are not competing against each other), but of course any and all teams can lose.

Education is not enough, an example brought up by  (Klienman (2011) is that anesthesiologist are perhaps some of the best educated on drugs,  but have high rates of drug use among professionals, mostly due to access.

(Klienman (2011) illustrates a divergence between two schools of thought. One camp of “faith” summarized in the paragraph: “that an once of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”which basically argues that even if the results that can be measured appear disappointing, the focus should be in “increasing the dose,” more education, earlier; lengthen the curriculum, and start in grade school, goes the thinking.  (Klienman (2011) states that this focus of thinking is embraced by political and community leaders but stands in contrast to the more cynical camp, more populated by academics who argue that “pursuing bigger and bolder versions of things that do not work, makes no sense.” In terms of focus, this camp argues that budgets for such curriculums should be cut not expanded and that focus should be “pulled away from classic school based programs” and instead directed toward “broad based community and coalition strategies that pursue a range of tactics tailored to local problems  (Klienman (2011) pp 77).

There may be considerable merit, in the later line of thinking, if the old and variant  adage “Troubles  [and/or] Education begins at home.” is considered. After all there is a limit to what the best education in schools can achieve within the quagmire of the greater community (especially the household) that the child exists in. This is supported at nauseum in studies____. And most risk factors but aberrant behavior revolve around the homelife and immediate community. It makes sense then that programs targeting student and community deserve more focus. Although considerable latitude exists in what “broad based,” and “range of tactics” for “local problems” actually means.

Is the problem is that middle class families focus fear on their children so focus is one the school____????? Does this take away from resources for poorer communities. Explore.

Waves of drug use Drug use comes in waves, in America, Marijuana and Heroine in the 1960s, powder cocaine in the 1970s, crack in the 1980s, methamphetamine and MDMA in 1990s.

Part of the challenge with prevention education, is that dug use and use “epidemic” if we are to categorize it this way, comes in waves and is often cyclical. It often peaks before it is recognized as a threat. For example cocain initiation and peaked in the 1970s, yet such things could be written in 1974 as “Cocain___is probably the most benign of the illicit drugs currently in wide-spread us, short acting- not physically addicting.” was written in Drugs and Drug abuse Education Newsletter by Peter Bourne, who later served a President Jimmy Carter’s white House Drug-policy advisor. __ This of course only helps to illustrate that the full recognition of cocaine's effects and danger did not become fully apparent until the mid 1980, with the rise of crack.

The traditional age of initiating drug use (other than marijuana) is 20 (Klienman (2011) pp76. Whereas traditional prevention programs target middle schoolers, reacting to contemporary drug epidemic.

Another critique with drug education is that when it is not specific and behind the times, it is generic as (Klienman (2011) states. ___ cite. This is problematic when we consider drugs are all very different, Marijuanna is not the same as crack and crack cocaine is not the same as powder. ____

It could be argued that drug prevention programs would be better served focusing less on the drugs in the generic sense, but on cultivating good habits, addressing not just drugs, but bullying, gang membership and violence.

Marijuana as a gateway

Marijuana is statistically significant for using harder drugs, there is little debate about this. As Klienman (2011) pp 80, points out, “almost everyone who uses cocaine heroin and methamphetamines” used marijuanna first.

However, it is not clear that marijuana use is a cause or simply a “signal” of harder drug use.

Marjuanna can remain is the body system for up to 30 days, showing up in urine tests.

It may not be helpful to attach the label “epidemic” to drug use. Although it does spread from person to person, and can be likened to a “contagion,” this pattern of spread does not differentiate drug use from other phenomenon such as fashion and other aspects of culture. There is also some concern that labeling drug use as a disease can lead to targeting, isolation and drastic measures with ominous implications.

The epidemic cycle can be articulated as such; 1. initially there is low use as the market is developing,

2. but as initiation continues, drug use increases rapidly, and initiation rate follows as drug markets become more established.

3. Eventually both initiation and use peak, but heavy use can still continue to grow. Drug use becomes “endemic.”  eventually use and initiation fall, as the numbers of users decline (due to arrest or death) faster than new users are initiated.

However, as Klienman (2011) illustrates, a dynamic response to controlling drug use, may be more effective if the “epidemic cycle” is taken into account. For example, prevention and law enforcement efforts to restrict drug supply are most effective in the early stage before the markets are still small and  have  yet to fully developed. Later when markets become more entrenched, it may be more effective to control side effects of dealing, that focus on arresting dealers. While the strategy of going after dealers may help stem use in the early phase of the market, if the use of the particular drug enters a point of critical mass and becomes widespread, arrested dealers can be easily replaced, and law enforcement efforts might be more effectively allocated to controlling the side effects (eg. violence) associated with use (often specifically flagrant use). As Klienman (2011) pp 91), the focus can be switched between “eradication” and “accommodation”. Optimally, eradication would be the focus in the early period of the specific drug use, and later a strategy of accommodation” focused on slowing the growth, but more importantly buffer the violence and disorder from the illicit market. The point stressed by Klienman (2011) is that the full support of resources should be used to back up whichever strategy is effectively utilized. However, Klienman (2011) argues that politically, the strategy easiest and often embraced is that of “doing a little bit” and is rarely an effective one.” ___

The response of criminalization
DEA against large domestic and foreign entities (Is that changing under Trump?)

The focus of arrests on users and low level dealers

Mass Incarceration

(minimum sentencing laws), private prisons.

The tendency toward simplified goals “metrics of success”

Cracking down on prescription drugs (the Siege Cycle)

Recovery
There is a tendency to focus on the individuals in crippling addiction, who require pharmacological and institutional help in order to treat their addiction. But statistically, most drug users, recover by themselves naturally, also termed “self change.”

Classic study (___) following Vietnam veterans who were technically “opiate dependant” while abroad, found around 80% sustained opiate abuse after three years upon return.

Vietnam

People did drugs in vietnam, drug use was widespread and well documented by personal accounts,

Even I have encountered primary accounts that supported the rampant drug use present by american service personnel during their Vietnam tour.

Part of the idea behind the disease model, is the idea of “tipping point” and “critical mass”

On Matters of American Policy
It is questionable to formulate public policy based entirely on the evaluation of risks associated with specific drugs. Because policy shapes the risks associated with the drugs. For example, poverty among heavy cocaine users may be more pronounced than in severe alcoholics. But the risk of poverty (and the criminal tendency associated with this condition) has to do with the fact that Alcohol is legal, and therefore there is more ready and economical (cheaper) access to it rather  than expensive street drugs like cocaine (Drugs, Kleiman, et al. (2011) pp 12.). This applies to the fluctuating nature of drug use on the street as various illegal drugs go “in and out of fashion.” But much of this fashion is driven by economics; the street prices of __ cocaine goes up, people may switch to another drug for a while, until a different (illicit) distributer steps in to offer an affordable supply, as by ___ and ___ in there respective memoirs, the mexican cartels started creating their own cocaine after operation ____ on Columbian operations in_____

As highlighted by Kleiman pp10 (2011) there is a myth, that only certain people with “addictive personalities are doomed to drug use, while everyone else is “safe.” Rather “addictive personality” is a consequence of drug use, not the cause.

Paracelsus, a Swiss, Renaissance age physician coined the phrase, “All things are poison and nothing is without poison. Solely the dose determines that a thing is not a poison, (Grandjean, 2016)”

It could be argued that cannabis (marijuanna) is not a drug itself, but plant material that contains many different psychoactive drugs, notably THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) and cannabidiol (Drugs, Kleiman, et al. (2011) pp 1.). I would argue that this distinction is rather pedantic as many drugs (legal and otherwise) contain other drugs and/or materials. As a simple example, Percocet is basically a combination of Oxycodone (a narcotic) and Acetaminophen (NIH, 2012). This distinction gets messier when trying to classify street drugs, which are cut with many other substances, many of which are licit and illicit active ingredients.

Drug abuse control measures often aim for one or more of these objectives:


 * Reducing the number of people who use a specific drug or fall into heavy use.
 * Reducing the damage associated with a specific drug (characterized by injury, premature mortality, burden on health system, collateral death and criminal activity).

The problem is that many of the policy actions taken toward these objectives are often in conflict with each other. There are many examples present, increasing taxes on licit drugs (like alcohol and nicotine) will further impoverish heavy users and increase both their suffering and that of their families and dependants. If it becomes too costly to obtain a drug legally (or it is outright illegal), the user may turn to the illicit market, which is full of its own problems. It is recognized that the illegal market is far more user unfriendly. There is no legally enforced quality control and no legal way to resolve conflicts. The result of these two problems is an increased mortality,  injury (and by extension health cost) associated with drug use from hazards such as mislabeling, adulteration with toxic substances (such as lead, (Akhgari, 2018)) and poor infection control, such as transmission of AIDS and hep C from needles (National Research Council, 1989). In regard to conflict, the absence of a legal platform to dispute problems between illicit users, various distributors and makers propels a tendency toward violence and all it’s collateral damage.

If we were to focus only on the problems of drug enforcement, we might formulate an opinion as such: we may not know what the best drug policy is, but because the current policy is doing more damage than the actual drug, it is reasonable to do away with the current enforcement policy. The authors of Drugs and drug policy pp. 20 (2011) respond to this proposed line of thinking as such; that it “rests on a fallacy” and go on to create an allegory to airline regulations.

“Air travel is now so safe that the cost of airline safety measures is hugely higher than the cost of actual air disasters; but it is precisely because the industry and its regulators are so fantatical about safety that accidents are rare. It doesn’t follow that we should abandon equipment inspections and pilot licensing.”

This is, I would argue, an improper allegory. Because it revolves around airline regulation; “equipment inspections” and “pilot licencing,” not prohibition. A more fitting allegory would be if we were to compare the cost (in capital and human life) imposed in the current regulatory environment, to the cost of accidents if air travel were entirely prohibited. If entirely prohibited, far fewer people would fly, however, many people still would (the advantage of faster transport of persons and cargo). And in the context of limited to non existent regulatory infrastructure, we can reasonably surmise that the cost of “accidents” would rise substantially over what it is now. If we were to draw from this airline allegory, we might conclude then, that the cost of human life and capital is lower when air travel is regulated rather than prohibited.

The point they are making, is that comparing the “burden of a drug abuse under prohibition and the burden of prohibition itself” is improper (Drugs, Kleiman, 2011). It is more appropriate, they argue, to compare the problem and combined4 damage of drug abuse under an alternative policy to the problem of drug abuse (and it’s combined damage) under the  current policy. But again this is pedantic, because the absence of prohibition is itself an alternative policy.

There are two important considerations, when hypothesising the absence of prohibition of illegal hard drugs such as cocaine and heroin. If the goal is simply to decrease the cost of prohibiting these substances, the absence of prohibition will decrease this cost. There may even be a net monetary gain to the state, if the sale of licit recreational heroin and cocaine becomes taxable.

However, the question becomes, is it right to allow the state, and/or legal commercial entity, like big pharma to capitalize on the manufacture of recreational heroin and cocaine at the expense of the users. As established, even if the collateral damage associated with illegal activity (like improper cutting, dirty needles, criminal violence etc.) were no longer issues, in the light of this legal drug environment, people would still suffer the adverse effects of these narcotics uses (including overdose). This may not seem like an issue, if we imagine that the vulnerable abusers (in the current prohibitory environment) represent the sum of users in the population. However, as noted in Drugs (2011, pp 22), there is absolutely no reason to believe the current level of dependency on drugs, such as heroin or cocaine, represents any kind of ceiling. It is not difficult to imagine, that in the absence of legal and/or cultural deterrent, recreational drug use would increase exponentially, as would narcotic abuse, overdose mortality and morbidity (and subsequently increase in healthcare cost). Combine the absence of legal deterrent, with the arguably market friendly culture in the US and it is not difficult to see how large corporations, pharmaceutical companies and distributors would jump on this newly opened market. Even if we imagine, the legal tools available to curtail recreational drug production and distribution (high taxes, heavy regulation). It is important to consider the incredible momentum posed by legal identities, in the form of advertising, advocacy and lobbying to break and keep open the goldmine of potential financial capital of this very potentially lucrative and expansive market, even if it came at the cost of health to the consumers.

It may be difficult to imagine this environment, So I would like to draw attention to, in my view,  a very similar market. Not the often compared tightly regulated markets of cigarettes and alcohol, but the arguably uncontrolled market of sugar based products.

The “Noble Experiment” ie. Prohibition of alcohol, suggests that deaths from liver cirrhosis, which in Drugs (Kleiman, 2011 pp 23), is suggested as a measure of chronic long term drinking “fell by a third,” while the price of alcohol tripled. It also surmise that domestic violence, which while admittedly was not tracked, probably went down during this time.

However, what is not taken into account is the loss of life due to toxic alcohol distribution (wood alcohol use), and the criminal element that arise very quickly following prohibition. More importantly, since prohibition ended  in 1933, after only roughly twelve years (Blocker, 2016), we do not see the potential rise and strengthening of the criminal infrastructure domestically and internationally, that has come to define the current drug regulatory environment.

Neither Holland nor Portugal have “legalized” drugs. As of 2001, the possession of drugs like cocaine and heroin is no longer a crime in Portugal. However, it is still illegal to sell these drugs. Holland, has a slightly less restriction on marajuanna, where the nominally illegal activity of selling cannabis is not enforced (if under 5 grams as of 1996). And many coffee shops do engage in this commercial activity. However, it has created a rather paradoxical environment, where it is legal to sell the cannabis at the front door, but obtaining the drug, through importation or growth, is still illegal. These half measures were done primarily to limit the advertising and distribution market of the drug. Even so, the rate of Marajuanna use doubled following the opening in these coffee shops from 1984 to 1986 (Drugs, Kleiman 2011, pp 24-25)

The word prohibition is rather confusing. In the vernacular “prohibition” is used to describe the policy shorthand for the “war on drugs,” which entails the criminalization of production, transport and distribution and use of illicit drugs. However, for historical context, the word “prohibition”  in regard to alcohol under the Volstead Act (1919) did not criminalize the use or drinking of alcohol (Drugs, Kleiman 2011, pp 27-28)

An important consideration in the advocacy of “decriminalization,” is that while it may peel back the stigma and loosen the legal burden of using illicit drugs, it has little effect on the criminal enterprise involved in getting these drugs into the hands of users. It may even increase the monetary flow into these criminal markets due to increased drug use (Drugs, Kleiman 2011, pp 27-28)

Increased total drug consumption can be considered illustrative of increased “heavy drug use.” because the volume of consumption is more heavily influenced by heavy users than by total users. For example, regular drinker  who consumed 10 drinks a day is more important to the alcohol industry than 50 people who drink once a week. A statistic illustrated by Philip J. Cook's "Paying the Tab," and extrapolated from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) data indicates that the top 10% of American drinkers consume 50% of total alcohol consumed (Drugs, Kleiman 2011, pp 29, Washington Post, Think, 2014).

As a result, since the industry of alcohol is dependant on heavy drinkers it has used its legal abilities including the political clout afforded by it’s moderate but modestly profitable user base, to prevent effective regulatory measures designed to curtail problematic drinking. Examples____The underlying problem is that these industries currently depend on the relatively small but heavily addicted subsegment of their user base for economic prosperity. This is the case whether the drug is legal and regulated (as in the case of alcohol) or illegal (Drugs, Klienman, 2011, pp 30-33).

Another important consideration when considering legalization and regulation of currently illicit substances, is that simply making them “legal” does not automatically end the criminal enterprise. If the substance is taxed too much, or certain regulatory barriers prevent the market from access to it’s most profitable section (such as laws intended to limit heavy use), criminal enterprise can simply circumvent the legal pathway entirely. As an example, In the 1990s, a widespread tax evasion  on cigarettes forced Canada to repeal a modest tax of less than $5 (Drugs, Klienman, 2011, pp 30).

One possible solution is availability without free trade. As described by Klienman (2011) pp 31), a governmental body would be in charge of distribution, providing a legal avenue for users but without the lobbying or advertisement from private enterprise. This is only theory, however.

John Stewart Mill's famous “Harms Principle”  Klienman (2011) pp 31)

“That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

An important criticism, as conveyed by Klienman (2011)  against the harms principle is that it assumes people are rational actors, which is demonstrably false. Many people who are addicted to cigarettes wished they had never smoked. And arguably, very few if any crippled addicts want to be addicted. People are not temptation proof. And entire industries have been built on exploiting this fact. As Klienman (2011, pp 43) points out, the “400,000 preventable deaths per year” associated with cigarette smoking is a “high price to pay,” for the fact most 17 year olds aren’t as smart as the marketing teams and executives paid and incentives  to turn them into addicts. To be clear this is paternalistic perspective, from which, it can be articulated that the criminalization and regulation surrounding illicit and controlled substances is a form of (arguably) clumsy public protection. This sentiment is echoed in the memoir “Drug Warrior” by Jack Riley (2019) and referred to by Don Bloch in his own memoir Flying... (2016), although Bloch himself was dissident to this view. That being, the “war on drugs” is very much one of protecting the American people against substances and criminal industries that seek to exploit people for their enterprise.

The application of this principle depends on the culture, while in the country in Japan it might be culturally acceptable for the government to regulate individuals checkups and weight, most American’s would find this level of paternalism outrageous. But as Klienman (2011) points out, the fact that the actions of a principle can be “extended to absurdity” does not mean that actions to a more conservative degree should be disregarded outright. The argument then becomes which extensions (policies and such) are acceptable to the culture in question. It is difficult to justify sweeping assertions that “self damage” should be ignored when crafting policy based on a philosophical anchor such as the harm principle.

Stimulants and depressants (uppers and downers) are often complementary. For example, heavy cocaine users also utilize alcohol or benzodiazepines, such as valium, as downers (Klienman, 2011 pp 37___cite)

Klienman (2011, pp 39) also argues that higher taxes (at least in the case of alcohol) could be useful policy tools to curb heavy drinking and “improve the health and longevity of heavy drinkers)

Klienman (2011, pp 40) also suggests more personalized policy regarding drugs and cites at least some precedent when applied to alcohol. The Sobriety 24/7 Project in South Dakota enforced a strict prohibition “24/7” on drivers convicted twice of drunk driving (as opposed to only prohibiting drinking while at the wheel). The policy was enforced, in part, with mandatory urine drug screenings. Klienman (2011) credits this policy with reducing drunk driving recidivism and alcohol related highway fatalities (cite___).

It can be argued that more personalized policy, focusing prohibition and/or limitation upon specific individuals who have demonstrated problematic behavior associated with legalized drugs, would be better than more blanket coverage policies. ___

But even blanket policies have some effect on drug use. For example, in regard to alcohol, the under 21 restriction seems to curb some damage associated with use. According to Klienman (2011 pp 40), when many states lowered the drinking age (from 21 to 18) in the 1970s, teenage highway deaths increased dramatically.

Law enforcement can hamper drug use albeit indirectly. By arresting more dealers, risk is added and often dealers demand more money as compensation. This “wage increase” drives prices up and as such, this kind of enforcement can act as a “tax” on the drug. In addition, getting rid of dealers can make it harder for users to locate a supplier, as Klienman (2011) points out, enforcement can disrupt the market for a limited time while it adapts  to bypass the new enforcement tactics.

As long as there are people willing to buy, there will always be individuals willing to sell. And the people who sell the drugs on the street are easily replaceable.

As Klienman (2011 pp 47) points out, couriers get the short end of the stick, generally low -skilled hourly employees who have no stake in the profits, but bear the brunt of the sentence driven by quantity possessed at the time of arrest. Even Riley (2019) in his memoir, highlights the misdirection he perceived in the focus of street level dealers, and claims that throughout his career, pushed to focus on the criminals higher up the food chain.

As a general rule seizing drugs is even less effective in decreasing a specific drug use because drugs are even more replaceable than sellers. This is the rule of “ready replacement.” However there are some exceptions, notably LSD, which is relatively difficult to synthesize (Klienman (2011 pp45)

In general, the cost of creating drugs is relatively inexpensive. For example Cocain and Heroine are sold in their source country for 1% of the retail price they get in the US.

This is partly due to inflation between the currencies--? cite ? is it?

But the main reason for the price hike is all the cost and labor that goes into transporting those drugs into the country. Cocaine must pass through many covert transactions that drive up the final price exponentially.

While enforcement by arrest (of dealers) and seizure may have a modest indirect effect on drug use by driving up wages, there is strong evidence for diminishing return on enforcement.

There is compelling evidence for this. “Aggressive enforcement” is difficult to link to higher drug prices. Other developed countries have had higher prices with less aggressive enforcement, suggesting there are more important factors in play that affect price.

Aggressive enforcement increased number of incarcerated by ten-fold over 30 years until 2010 Klienman (2011, pp 48). A study by Ilyana Kuziemko and Steven Levitt have estimated a modest rise in cocaine price from 1985-2000 by 5-15%. (Klienman (2011, pp 48 _____ add citation).

The evidence suggests that while enforcement may cause an increase in drug price, there is limited effect on the drug market that cannot be overcome by more aggressive enforcement alone.

Klienman (2011) pp 48) opinions that prohibition alone plus “moderate enforcement” does drive up drug prices “far above” what they would be if legal, but beyond that ill defined point, aggressive enforcement has negligible effect on the illicit market.

This begs the question of what cost should the US bear in regard to “more aggressive enforcement” when considering the collateral damage that can be clearly linked to certain aggressive measures.

-So which is it, does “ready replacement” apply to drugs or does arresting low level sellers actually succeed in disrupting the market. Klienman (2011 pp 44-45 states both).

“Price elasticity of demand” is the technical term used to describe the responsiveness of demand  to price. This is expressed as a negative relationship. For example, if a study finds  that elasticity is between -0.5 to -1.0, this means that when the price goes up by 10%, consumption can be predicted to drop for 5-10% Klienman (2011 pp 50).

Elasticity varies by drug and user type. A historical  assumption is that casual of recreational users might respond to price increases, hard core users would not because of the need to “get their fix Klienman (2011 pp50). But this is not the case, as Klienman (2011) argues, because people (even and perhaps especially heavy users) care very much about the prices they spend their money on. For dependant users, drugs will account for 50-80% of their disposable income and rely on charity, family and/or crime to cover other expenses like food and housing.

Participation elasticity describes how price effects the number of users

Conditional elasticity describes how much of a drug is consumed by users

These economic distinctions are important because, as noted before, heavy users make up the bulk of the market consumption. But dependance takes time and often starts early, projected between the ages of 12-25 because as Klienman (2011) points out and studies___ support, older adults do not usually start mind altering substances if they have not already tried them. This means that there is a delayed effect in consumption. A drop in price today, would not necessarily lead to a dramatic,  contemporary increase in consumption but as younger adults and kids become exposed to a contemporarily cheap drug, this  might lead to increased use among older adults 10 years later.

Drug spending is the product of consumed quantity multiplied by price (Klienman (2011) pp 52

For example, if a 10% price increase results in a 15% usage decline, the demand can be described as “relatively elastic” (Klienman (2011). It can be projected that in this case, a price increase could lead to decreased revenues toward this drug. This might translate to successful curbing of the drug use. However if there is less than 5% decline in response to the same price hike, then the demand described as “relatively inelastic” and the drug market revenues can be projected to increase in response to the price hike. This result can exasperate drug related crime as it squeezes the users financially. Historically, skepticism was levied on supply-control programs that sought to curb use by making the supply harder to acquire. According to (Klienman (2011) it is better understood that use does very much indeed, vary with price.

There is an argument that enforcement should be directed to decrease violence instead of simply driving prices up and decreasing availability (Klienman (2011) pp52).

There is a clear correlation between availability and use. The easier a drug is to obtain, the more it gets used (Klienman (2011)Evidence____

This availability has been shown to matter in the case of alcohol and tobacco. The more retail outlets sell, the longer the store hours, the greater the consumption, and the greater consumption among youth.

Law enforcement and limiting availability can be argued to stop a new drug from spreading to a new area. Before the introduction of oxycontin, heroin use was relatively absent from “rural America”, generally concentrated in specific urban sites. __evidence. Heroine is pharmacologically close to oxycodone, and the price between the two was not significantly different, what changed (with the introduction of oxy) was the availability and suddenly parts of Appalachia developed a “serious opiate-abuse problem” (Klienman (2011). ___

Drug related crime can be expressed in three types, as described by Paul Goldstein, a sociologist at the University of Illinois (Klienman (2011 pp 52)


 * 1) Pharmacological damage caused by intoxication or withdrawl
 * 2) 2. Economic-compulsinve crime, commited by users to finance their habit or livelihood in the setting of their addiction.
 * 3) Systematic crime asssocaited with the illicit market.

It can be argued that “catching drug kingpins” rarely affects the availability of drugs. While the memoir of Jack Riley (Drug Warrior, 2019) illustrates the steps made to stop major cartels, such as “El Chapo” and highlights the importance of these efforts, there is significant doubt, at least in academia, that this focus actually disrupts drug distribution. This is because the “cartels” and illicit organizations are generally not monopolies but can be described as “networks.T”  dealers can be described as “nodes” in these interconnections, often redundant ones (Klienman (2011).. The network may be prone to violent infighting and specific antagonists may be felled by outside enforcement, but the interconnectedness and redundancy of players makes the actual trade resistant to disruption by enforcement.

There are exceptions to this model. The DEA arrest of a major LSD chemist, dropped the use of the drug significantly. Internationally, It can be argued that one important factor in the  Autralian “heroin drought” that began in 2001, was the successful dismantling of a major smuggling organization. In select cases, the creation or transport of these drugs, in these cases, depended on difficult-to-replace infrastructure that once dismantled, left a measurable vacuum.

There have been some successes with controlling “precursors” in the production of meth, specifically in Oregon ( (Klienman (2011, pp56)  However controlling the precursors does not stop production, normally makes it more expensive.

Money laundering is the process of converting illicit funds into financial assets that cannot be traced back to their illegal source. Police action can also help to reduce drug use, by making it more expensive (increase investigation of laundering services drives up laundering costs and thereby increases the cost of drug service. However, by no means is most of the illicit money laundered. Of the 65 billion reaped by the illegal drug market, only the very top criminals, netting over 250,000$, need to convert cash to assets ( (Klienman (2011) most criminals can spend most cash using cash.

Many criminals test positive for drugs at the time of arrest. This does not mean that drugs cause crimes, although there is a correlation between increased drug use at the time of increase crime. (Klienman (2011 pp59)

Most criminals in prison on drug charges are there for distribution, and most consist of low level couriers and mules.

Sentence reduction also favors the criminals higher up the food chain, who are most likely to have useful information on other criminals. This is not the case for low level mules who often bear the brunt of the longest, full sentences  (Klienman (2011 pp 61)

In regard to crack versus powder cocaine, a bit of history. During the 1970s, cocaine was generally an expensive luxury drug mostly because snorted in powdered form and required a relatively large quantity to get high. This changed in the 1980s with the introduction of “crack” cocaine, that could be sold in small chunks and smoked (as opposed to snorted). The price of weight for weight between the powder and crack was still the same, but users could get an intense high from smoking a $5 “rock,” vs snorting 100$ worth of powder. This innovation brought cocaine in “crack” form within the budget of more users. This market did increase violence and homicide, and panic over this new “epidemic,” amplified by the media prompted strong legislature against “crack’ specifically. These included 5 year mandatory sentencing laws for possession of 5 grams (500$) worth of crack. In contrast, it required possession of 500 grams of powder to reap such a sentence. This disproportionality of sentencing hit the black population harder, compared to the wealthier powder cocaine users. There is no denying that this knee jerk policy reaction had both an economic and racially prejudiced impact  (Klienman (2011pp 68).

There is more focus on “flagrant” marketplaces. Ie. sellers on street corners, selling in the open. This is in contrast to “discreet” transactions, that take place in private or semi private places (like homes) usually between friends” or the “pizza” model, where the drug is delivered to the door. (Klienman (2011) pp 70)

The problem with “flagrant markets” emerge in the setting of an overwhelmed criminal justice system. They also lead to more violence. Selling in the open, inviting targets for robbery, there is less trust between criminals  in this setting and more propensity for violence. Which does occur, sensationalized by the media or not, and the effects on the community are devastating. No one wants to raise their children in a place with drive by shootings and increased risk of being killed in the crossfire. Those on the higher end of the economic spectrum, who can leave, often do so, taking with them their financial assets and sending the community deeper into a spiral of poverty. (Klienman (2011)pp64). When this occurs it is difficult for law enforcement alone to solve the problem. Law enforcement can and does make a high number of arrests, but because street sellers are easily replaced, especially in the setting of general poverty, this is not enough to fix the problem.

However, policing to push back at flagrant selling is arguably an important effort, because of the side effects (violence) associated with flaggrant activity, pushing drug dealing back to covert venues and methods can increase the quality of life in those communities ( (Klienman (2011)pp 68)

There is a surprising lack of police corruption in drug fighting compared to the massive and systemic corruption present during alcohol prohibition. Part of the reason for this could be the fact that overlapping jurisdiction reduce the value of making a corrupt agreements with one agency, or individual  (Klienman (2011)pp 65).

Designer drugs are those “designed” to produce the effect of controlled substances but, if barely, exist within the law. Examples include “Mephedrone” and methcathinone prior to becoming scheduled themselves.

E commerce is an interesting, evolving development in illicit drug purchase. It can be argued that ordering drugs online and receiving them “pizza style” is less damaging to the community because of the reduction of selling related violence  (Klienman (2011) pp 71). Arrest is arguably harder in e-commerce.

Confiscation of drug sellers assets is debated topic. The question lies in whether law enforcement should be able to confiscate drug dealer assets following arrest. The argument for, revolves around justice and punishment, the goal should be to deprive the criminal of ill-gotten gains, and it seems unjust to allow criminals to assess financial assets acquired through illegal means. In theory the added benefit, to asset seizure is to supplement law enforcement budget and/or the government. But this is in fact the problem, detractors point out. Allowing law enforcement to subsidize themselves or a benefiting government agency would in effect be creating an incentive to engage in forfeiture. There are several problematic elements to this. These include the potential for abuse, the probability that incentives would sway enforcement targeting decision. However, the biggest concern revolves around developing a conflict of interest  (Klienman (2011) pp 72)

A Risk factor is an element (ie. behavior, status) that is associated with higher risk for drug use.

Conversely, a “protective factor” is also a factor associated with lower drug use. The importance of the retaliation “associate” is imperative, because it is difficult to establish causality with many risk factors. The difference is subtle, but to establish causality/being able to say “something is caused by this,” takes a degree of evidence that is difficult to establish ethical. For example, as  (Klienman (2011) pp72) explains,  we may draw a connection to church attendance and “getting good grades” as protective elements --Debatable? But it would be both unethical and infeasible to assign some children bad grades or require them to go to church before testing for a drug use relationship, in order to establish causality to these risk factors.

There is some argument that prevention services should target risk and protective  factors in order to curb drug use behavior. The other hand, according to  (Klienman (2011) is that there needs to be a causal relationship between the targeted factor and drug use behavior.

Gender, “boys are at a higher risk to use drugs,” surrounded to  (Klienman (2011), although the gender gap is narrowing. Explore____

How do Children acquire drugs. Contrary to what previously popular notion, the idea of an adult “drug pusher” getting unsuspecting children into drugs is, as  (Klienman (2011) points out, largely a myth. This makes sense because a drug dealer faces serious consequences for revealing themselves, so they would only do so to interested, acquainted and often vetted and trusted sources.  There are important exceptions, generally revolving around specific cases of child trafficking, abuse and captivity. ___but for the large majority of children in the US and developed countries, almost all are introduced to drugs through an acquaintance, close friend or sibling. This is an important consideration, because it helps explain why prevention programs have modest to limited success in reducing drug use. The reason they are used has more to do with economics, they are cost-effective, even if the “effectiveness” if questionable. ___There is a wide variance in education quality.

An important takeaway is that drug use cannot be decreased by education alone, even when this education is accurate. The best programs have “tangible but underwhelming results” ( (Klienman (2011)pp76).

“Just say no,” is not the answer. But education itself is not a panacea for prevention is not realistic. Klienman (2011) points to the fact that “education only programs in the 1960s and 70s were abandoned after evaluations showed they actually increased drug use (Klienman (2011) pp76.___What is not mentioned is that these “education” programs directed at children were egregiously inaccurate. ??