National Amphetamine-Type Stimulant Strategy Background Paper: Monograph Series No. 69
6.5 Local drug markets
Because drug markets are where ‘supply and demand converge’, intervention strategies need to target both as reducing the supply of a drug to local markets can have a dramatic effect on both criminal justice and health outcomes (Weatherburn et al., 2003). Infiltrating these markets requires knowledge of how the market operates. The 2006 DUMA report suggested that, in clandestine illicit drug markets, it can be quite difficult for buyers and sellers to become connected and effort is required even for experienced buyers to assess the options available in the market (Mouzos et al., 2007). In most markets, the buyer and seller make a significant time investment in the exchange relationship (Wilkins et al., 2004). Nevertheless, a significant proportion of police detainees and injecting drug users (IDU) are active in the methamphetamine market. Furthermore, as indicated by the 2004 National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS), this market is also available to the general population as approximately 110,000 persons aged 14 years and older reported accessing the methamphetamine market within the last week (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2005a).
There are differences in the ways consumers access illegal drug markets for different drug types (see Table 6.4). The 2004 NDSHS reported that both meth/amphetamine and ecstasy were more commonly obtained from a friend (70%) than a dealer (23%) (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2005a). In contrast, the most common method among police detainees was contacting a dealer for methamphetamine by calling on a mobile phone (31%), or visiting the dealer’s residence (26%) (Mouzos et al., 2007). The 2006 DUMA report found that, irrespective of the drug purchased, detainees were more likely to have purchased their drugs from a regular source, although a higher proportion of detainees purchased ecstasy from a new source compared to other drugs (Mouzos et al., 2007). When methamphetamine is bought within the detainee’s own suburb, the supplier is likely to be a regular supplier. They are also more likely to report sourcing from a house or flat for the drug in contrast to heroin which is more likely to be sourced on the street (Mouzos et al., 2007). However, detainees who had used a new source at their last time of purchasing methamphetamine were more likely to have purchased the drug from the street (Mouzos et al., 2007). A major study of the market in Sydney also found that purchasing from street dealers was uncommon among a sample of regular methamphetamine users (McKetin et al., 2005).
Among the national sample for the 2006 Illicit Drug Reporting System (IDRS), all forms of methamphetamine were most commonly purchased from ‘friends’ and ‘known dealers’, and the most common locations of purchase were ‘agreed public location’, ‘friend’s home’ and ‘dealer’s home’ (O’Brien et al., 2007). This was replicated in the 2006 Ecstasy and Related Drugs Reporting System (EDRS), with the exception of ‘agreed public location’ as a common location of purchase (Dunn et al., 2007).
Top of Page
Table 6.4: Key drug market characteristics for those who paid cash for drugs in the past 30 days, adult police detainees (%)
Note: Excludes some categories, and therefore does not sum to 100
Source: AIC, DUMA collection 2006 [computer file]
Top of Page
Given the usual method of purchase from known sources in private or agreed locations, tackling street level markets will have limited impact. However, if users seeking out new sources do so in street markets, then strategies to reduce availability are important. Furthermore, research has shown that the perceived risk of law enforcement is a major factor affecting which markets users will access, how they use and entry into treatment (Weatherburn & Lind, 1999). In addition, research shows delaying the onset of initiation (and by implication access to markets for first time users) reduces the risks of long term health and criminal justice harms. Concern over the level of policing local markets was raised in the consultations:
- Despite recent developments and concerns about illicit drug trafficking States and Territories have scaled down specialist units to assist with the detection and dismantling of illegal drug sources. While these may be costly and labour intensive for small States and Territories they are crucial to supply reduction.
- Although there are a number of ways in which crime reduction and prevention activity can have unintended, negative consequences...the empirical evidence suggests that a general risk of total displacement is insignificant...when compared to the gains that can be accrued from a well-planned and theoretically-sound police operation. Police managers should actively consider the possibility of a diffusion of crime prevention benefits as a potential ‘free policing’ benefit of an operation, spreading crime prevention profit to different crime types and other geographical areas. Actively seeking out evidence of this benefit will assist law enforcement in justifying operational expense, and planning future crime-reduction strategies. However the evidence to date indicates that benefits will eventually decay over the longer term so targeted police operations should be part of a wider crime prevention policy agenda (p.6).
Top of Page
