{news} Debunking Drug Czar Cocaine Claims

Wed Nov 21 09:59:06 EST 2007

Friends

The Washington Post has an excellent article debunking the claims of the
drug czar on cocaine being less available.  The article is reprinted below.
In case the graphs don't translate see:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/?hpid=news-col-blog<http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/?hpid=news-col-blog>

 Gov Watch

Is There a 'Cocaine Shortage'?

Mexican Marines guard large cocaine haul in November

"It's unprecedented...This is not only the deepest shortage [in the retail
cocaine market] but it's the longest we have seen."

--White House Drug Czar John Walters,`
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR200711080<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR200711080>
2147.html> interview with Washington Post, November 9, 2007.

"We've never had disruptions of this magnitude before."

--
<http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news/2007/nov/08/us-drug-czar-touts-cocaine<http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news/2007/nov/08/us-drug-czar-touts-cocaine>-
shortage-despite-confli/> Walters press conference in Bogota, Colombia,
November 7, 2007. 

A reality check in the "war on drugs." Drug Czar John Walters touted similar
disruptions to the cocaine market in the United States back in 2005, but the
progress turned out to be short-lived. Is there any reason we should believe
him this time? Unfortunately, the statistical methodology used by his office
and the Drug Enforcement Administration is extremely opaque.

The Facts

Success in the war on drugs is often measured by examining changes in the
price of cocaine, particularly the street price paid by American consumers.
If supplies are disrupted, the price will rise. It was therefore reasonable
enough for Walters to point to a 44 percent spike in median cocaine prices
between January and September as a significant development. The question is
whether the price increase is "unprecedented," and how long it will last.

Despite repeated requests, the Office of National Drug Control Policy has
declined to provide historical data to support the director's claim about
the "unprecedented" nature of the price increase. The only data they will
supply goes back to 2005, which is precisely the time when Walters
<http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/NEWS/speech05/111705.html<http://wwwwhitehousedrugpolicy.gov/NEWS/speech05/111705.html>> last claimed
a major decline in the availability of cocaine.

The chart used by Walters to trumpet his "unprecedented" claim is published
below. The data has been drawn from the STRIDE database maintained by the
Drug Enforcement Administration, which includes records of thousands of
domestic drug purchases by undercover agents at both the wholesale and
retail level. The Walters data represents the "mean", or average, price of
all these purchases. It is impossible to tell from the way the data is
presented how much cocaine has been bought at what level, a crucial
distinction since the retail price is typically several times higher than
the wholesale price. The prices are all current prices. (Had the prices been
adjusted for inflation, the pre-2007 line would be downward, rather than
flat.)

Neither Walters' office, nor the DEA, publishes cocaine price data on a
regular basis, so historical comparisons are almost impossible. The best
available data comes from a 2004 study by the RAND Corporation, which looked
at cocaine prices between 1981 and 2003. The RAND analysts used DEA data,
but they broke it down to examine different sections of the market, such as
less than two grams (a typical consumer purchase), two to ten grams, above
ten grams, and so on. They also adjusted prices for inflation, measuring
everything in 2002 dollars. The RAND analysis,
<http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/price_purity/<http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/price_purity/>> available
here on the drug czar's website, showed a steady decline in the price of
cocaine to the American consumer over more than two decades, interrupted by
occasional spikes.

Here are the RAND/DEA figures for the price of pure powder cocaine, based on
purchases of two grams or less, between 1981 and 2003:

The most striking point in this graph is the long-term downward trend in
retail cocaine prices, despite all the efforts at interdiction undertaken by
successive U.S. administrations. By eyeballing the chart, you can see that
there were significant price spikes in 1982, 1990, 1994, and 2000, which are
comparable to the recent increase. Each spike was followed by another sharp
decline, as producers responded to the higher prices. Compared to historical
levels, cocaine prices are still very low, particularly if you factor in
inflation.

The RAND data is not strictly comparable to the latest DEA data as it
measures the retail slice of the market, rather than average purchase
prices. (RAND data for other slices of the market show similar peaks and
troughs.) But it certainly suggests that policy-makers should be more
cautious in using terms like "unprecedented." 

"We have had three or four similar increases in the past 20 years," said
John Carnevale, director of the drug czar's planning and budget office under
George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. "Cocaine prices go up and go down, but
the long-run trend is one of decline. The increases were temporary, and did
not have any effect on the market in terms of reducing demand that we could
discern."

One of the principal authors of the RAND study, John Reuter, a professor of
public policy at the University of Maryland, said he was troubled by the way
the DEA and ONDCP (the drug czar's office) kept changing its statistical
methodology. "I don't understand why they don't run the series the same way
(as RAND), just to remove any doubts that the data is solid. It would be
much more convincing if they did that."

I called ONDCP to get its side of the story after the Washington Office on
Latin America, which has long been critical of U.S. drug policy, debunked
the Walters claim in an analysis,
<http://wola.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=viewp&id=600&Itemid=8<http://wola.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=viewp&id=600&Itemid=8>>
available here. Chief scientist David Murray said he would provide a full
set of historical data to support the director's statements, but later
withdrew the offer, saying that DEA would not authorize release of the
information. He criticized the WOLA analysis, saying the group was comparing
"oranges with hubcaps." The ONDCP critique is
<http://pushingback.com/blogs/pushing_back/archive/2007/11/16/38318.aspx<http://pushingback.com/blogs/pushing_back/archive/2007/11/16/38318.aspx>>
available here. 

Other indicators cited by Murray include
<http://www.prnewswire.com/mnr/quest/27128/<http://www.prnewswire.com/mnr/quest/27128/>> a drop in drug use in 2006
among some American workers and "
<http://whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/images/cocaine_shortages.gif<http://whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/images/cocaine_shortages.gif>> law
enforcement reports" suggesting a "cocaine shortage" in some American
cities.

There is considerable skepticism about the drug czar's data in Congress,
among both Democrats and Republicans. The co-chair of the Senate Caucus on
International Narcotics Control, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), noted that
the  <http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs25/25921/25921p.pdf<http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs25/25921/25921p.pdf>> Department of
Justice recently reported that "cocaine availability could return to normal
levels in late 2007 and early 2008," an assessment that appears to undermine
the upbeat claims of the drug czar. 

"I hope we are making progress, but I am not ready to crow yet," said
Grassley.

The Pinocchio Test

Drug Czar John Walters has failed to provide historical data to back up his
claim of an "unprecedented disruption" to the cocaine market. That would
appear to end the argument, but I understand this is a complicated subject,
so I would like to hear your views before issuing a verdict. It would be
good if we could drag some more data out of DEA and ONDCP. If they think
they have a valid case, they should put their data where their mouth is.

Efficacy
PO Box 1234
860 657 8438
Hartford, CT 06143
efficacy at msn.com<mailto:efficacy at msn.com>
www.Efficacy-online.org<http://www.efficacy-online.org/>

"THE DRUG WAR IS MEANT TO BE WAGED NOT WON"

Working to end race and class drug war injustice, Efficacy is a non profit
501 (c) 3 organization founded in 1997. Your gifts and donations are tax
deductible
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20071121/689340d5/attachment.html>