Law enforcement and Australia's 2001 heroin shortage: Evaluating the evidence

Abstract

Globally, illicit drug policy is largely based on two central olicy objectives. The first is to reduce the demand for illegal rugs mainly through criminalisation, drug prevention and reatment, and the second is to reduce the supply of illegal rugs primarily through law enforcement initiatives (Health anada, 2005; National Research Council, 2002; Office of ational Drug Control Policy, 2006). Supply reduction genrally involves targeting the production and distribution of llegal drugs through crop eradication in drug producing ountries, extensive boarder control and interdiction systems, nd dismantling local and international drug distribution netorks (General Secretariat, 2004; Office of National Drug ontrol Policy, 2006). These supply reduction measures have een found to receive the overwhelming majority of drug polcy funds (Boyum & Reuter, 2005; DeBeck, Wood, Montaner, Kerr, 2006; Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2001; ehm et al., 2006). However, the effort to promote government accountabilty has increased pressures on policy-makers to justify policy nvestments and provide scientific-based evidence in suport of policy decisions (Dobrow, Goel, & Upshur, 2004; oldman et al., 2001; Rosenstock & Lee, 2002). In the case f funding for supply reduction efforts, this has been difcult to accomplish. Rather, monitoring data on the price nd availability of illegal drugs has long indicated that law nforcement is failing to achieve its supply reduction objecives (General Secretariat, 2004; United Nations Office on rugs and Crime, 2005; United Nations Office on Drugs nd Crime, 2006). The lack of empirical evidence supportng the effectiveness of law enforcement-based policies is