ments about the effectiveness of alternative drug control activities (Moore, 1990). Against this background, a body of scientific work on the operation of drug markets began to take form during the 1990s. Researchers sought to understand the empirical relationship between drug use, drug production, and the street price of drugs. Some studies sought to compare the effect of alternative cocaine control strategies, including source country eradication and enforcement programs, interdiction efforts, local criminal justice programs, sentencing schemes, and treatment programs (Crane, Rivolo, and Comfort, 1997; Caulkins et al., 1997; Everingham and Rydell, 1994; Rydell and Everingham, 1994). Other studies sought to evaluate alternative heroin control strategies (e.g., Weatherburn and Lind, 1996; Caulkins, 1995b; White and Luksetich, 1983).

The RAND And IDA Studies

Of the limited research to date, the studies of cocaine control policy performed at RAND by Rydell and Everingham (1994) and at the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) by Crane, Rivolo, and Comfort (1997) have drawn unique attention in the ongoing struggle over federal funding of drug control activities. The RAND study has been used to argue that funding should be shifted toward drug treatment programs and away from activities to reduce drug production or to interdict drug shipments. For example, in a 1995 statement to the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, U.S. House of Representatives (1996:61), Lee Brown, then director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), stated:

Let me now talk about what we know works in addressing the drug problem. There is compelling evidence that treatment is cost-effective and provides significant benefits to public safety. In June 1994, a RAND Corporation study concluded that drug treatment is the most cost-effective drug control intervention.

The subsequent IDA study, which was undertaken in part as a reanalysis of the RAND findings, has been used to argue that interdiction activities should be funded at present levels or higher. In a 1996 hearing specifically devoted to the IDA study, ''Review of the Internal Administration's Study Critical of Clinton Drug Policy and White House Suppression of the Study," chair William H. Zeliff began this way (Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, U.S. House of Representatives, 1998:1):

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement