Over the years, there has been an increasing trend of drug abuse globally (Goode, 2008). Drug rackets have intensified. There are different kinds of the drug: cocaine, heroine, marijuana, etc. the drug racket runs almost like a parallel economy. Estimates show that in the US in the year 2000 almost $ 65 billion was spent in the retail level on drugs which was almost 40 percent less as the amount spent in 1980 at constant prices which indicates that there has been a marked decline in the consumption of drugs (Goode, 2008). But the flip side is heroine consumption has declined and cocaine consumption has increased. And cocaine price per gram is 20 times as much as that of heroine (Goode). Research shows that the money spent on drugs has declined, but there has been a marked increase in drug sales, only the cheaper drug (i.e. cocaine) has been more in demand. Thus, there has been a significant increase in drug-related crime over the years.
Drug enforcement has become a necessity due to increasing drug-related crime. But the question is why? Goode (2008) explains why drugs have to be combated:
- It constitutes a major chunk of the national income on illicit drug consumption.
- Drug rackets are organized and are controlled by groups like the “mafia”
- Drug abuse causes serious harm to the nation.
This raises the question of there is a link between drug abuse and crime. If so what are the law enforcement duties of local and state governments in curbing drug abuse-related crime? But usually dealing with narcotics is done in a different way than the handling of normal crime. Logically the question that arises is if the method of enforcing narcotics crime holds more risk than normal crime enforcement and if there are greater risks related to issuing of warrants in narcotics crime.
In order to understand the risk related to serving warrants in narcotics, it is necessary to understand the reason behind the relation between drugs and crime. Academic research has given birth to numerous researches that try to establish a connection between drug usage and propensity to commit a crime. The number of researches follows three generic models of connecting drug and crime viz. psychopharmacological, economic, and systematic models (Goode, 2008). The first model, the psychopharmacological model believes that as there is an increase in intake of drugs, it agitates and ignites the individuals’ senses that it makes them violent and abusive. The extent of the effect is so much that it forces the individual even to commit a crime. Second, the economic model deals with the connection between drugs, crime, and money. Researchers prior to the 1970s have tried to establish the connection between drug abuse and crime. Their research showed that individuals who become addicted to drugs take up the life of crime because they need to find money to finance their addiction. So research prior to the 1970s stressed economic compulsion as a reason for drug addicts to commit crimes. But after the 1970s this theory was abandoned by researchers who established the view that drug addiction is more prevalent among individuals who have already committed criminal acts earlier. The third, known as the systematic model argues that it is drug dealing is a criminal act that gives birth to crime. Researcher James Inciardi established the view that consuming illicit drugs and committing unlawful acts are driven by the same animalistic desire among humans to take risks and face danger (Goode). The research shows that addictions to drugs do not develop the desire to commit crime from scratch but rather intensifies the number of unlawful acts. Given these models, each has implications for drug crime enforcement.
Presently to warrant the supply side of the drug trafficking problem, it is necessary to understand how this can be done. With the large fragmentation of drug trafficking rackets, it has become extremely difficult to serve warrants to groups selling the drug. Further catching people who make drugs are also difficult. One has to keep in mind that drugs like heroine, cocaine, and marijuana are agriculturally produced and they are produced and processed in rudimentary labs in villages where law enforcement is low (Lyman, 2007). So it is fairly difficult to trap the small producers. Further in the case of street trafficking control of drugs, one has to make a difference between cocaine and heroin trafficking to marijuana selling (Reuter & Kleiman, 1986). Logically it is easier to capture a cocaine or heroine peddler as he sells his product in public places, they sell it frequently as the buyers cannot hoard these drugs for their desire to consume all at once and so needs to buy drugs more frequently (Reuter & Kleiman). Whereas marijuana can be hoarded and is not sold so frequently. Hence it is easier to capture the seller of cocaine and heroine. So the level of risk associated with issuing warrants against drug abuse crimes related to the systematic model is similar to that of any other crime.
The second option that arises is to control the demand side of the drug abuse chain. This shows even greater problems as drugs are different in nature and their consumption also has different effects on individuals. But when we consider the psychopharmacological model of drug abuse we see that they stem from the ignition of a desire to strike or violence. Handling such a situation is difficult. Without proper identification of the drug serving a warrant and specifying the drug to be illicit is difficult. Another problem that the administration faces is the findings of the recent research which shows that a very low percentage of criminals arrested for drug abuse which can be ascertained to economic or psychopharmacological factor. But they found that people who are addicted to cocaine at the upper strata are more related to violence. As men’s cocaine abuse increases they become the perpetrator of violence and when women’s cocaine abuse increase they become victim of that violence.
The major problems that can be ascertained from the above discussion are that drug and crime have been correlated but the nature of correlation is different. Crimes done by drug addicts are primarily petty theft related acts. Tackling or serving warrants are not difficult in these cases as they are usually committed by adolescent drug addicts (Reuter & Kleiman, 1986; Behrens & Tragler, 2002; Goode, 2008). But more serious criminal acts are committed by people whoa re involved in drug trafficking and not all are addicted to drugs. These are the people whoa re difficult to trace and/or serve warrants as they commit crime in full consciousness. So in case of normal crime authorities can serve warrants on the basis of substantiated proof, but in case of drug related crime, authorities have to confirm the possession of drugs.
Works Cited
Behrens, D. A., & Tragler, G. (2002). The dynamic process of dynamic modelling: the cocaine epidemic in the United States of America. Bulletin on Narcotics Volume LIII, Nos. 1 and 2 , 65-78.
Goode, E. (2008). Drugs in American Society, 7th Edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Lyman, M. D. (2007). Practical Drug Enforcement, 3rd Edition.. Boca Raton, FL.: CRC Press.
Reuter, P., & Kleiman, M. A. (1986). Risks and Prices: An economic analysis of drug enforcement. Crime and Justice vol. 7 , 289-340.