|
|
AZ ADAM Home | AZ ADAM Reports | NIJ ADAM Reports | Related Links |
|
Drug Markets
This section presents just a sampling of ADAM data on drug markets. Table 5.1 presents how drugs were acquired for males and females in Maricopa and Pima Counties. Of those arrestees who obtained a drug, heroin was the drug most likely to have been obtained with cash by both males and females in each county. Upwards of 80% of arrestees who obtained heroin in the past 30 days paid cash for it. For males and females, marijuana was most likely to be obtained without any money involved. The majority of those arrestees reported obtaining marijuana in social situations. Finally, crack cocaine was most likely to be obtained with both cash and non-cash transactions in the past month. Thus, it appears that individuals in the market for crack were extremely resourceful in finding means to acquire their drug.
|
|
Maricopa County |
Pima County |
||
|
|
Male |
Female |
Male |
Female |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marijuana |
(n=1,132) |
(n=269) |
(n=488) |
(n=88) |
|
Cash only |
47.4% |
29.7% |
45.3% |
31.4% |
|
Non-Cash only |
82.9 |
89.6 |
87.7 |
91.9 |
|
Cash and Non-Cash |
30.3 |
19.3 |
33.0 |
22.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crack |
(n=498) |
(n=201) |
(n=230) |
(n=72) |
|
Cash only |
79.5 |
81.1 |
77.3 |
82.6 |
|
Non-Cash only |
64.5 |
59.7 |
67.3 |
71.4 |
|
Cash and Non-Cash |
44.1 |
40.8 |
44.6 |
53.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Powder Cocaine |
(n=357) |
(n=91) |
(n=278) |
(n=61) |
|
Cash only |
51.4 |
50.5 |
59.6 |
48.3 |
|
Non-Cash only |
73.3 |
65.9 |
67.3 |
75.9 |
|
Cash and Non-Cash |
24.7 |
16.5 |
26.8 |
24.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heroin |
(n=184) |
(n=43) |
(n=73) |
(n=25) |
|
Cash only |
85.4 |
83.7 |
87.6 |
87.0 |
|
Non-Cash only |
50.2 |
48.8 |
50.6 |
39.1 |
|
Cash and Non-Cash |
35.7 |
32.6 |
37.8 |
26.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Methamphetamine |
(n=584) |
(n=181) |
(n=88) |
(n=31) |
|
Cash only |
66.6 |
51.9 |
54.6 |
61.3 |
|
Non-Cash only |
73.3 |
80.7 |
71.9 |
74.2 |
|
Cash and Non-Cash |
39.9 |
32.6 |
26.1 |
35.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 5.2 presents the percentage of arrestees who tried to obtain a drug but were unable, the reason for their failure, and how that changed between 2000 and 2001. For virtually all types of drugs, the percentage of arrestees who failed to obtain decreased in 2002 (the sole exception being methamphetamines in Pima County which may have become slightly more difficult to obtain).
It is informative to examine the reasons arrestees give for being unable to acquire a drug and how they might have changed. When arrestees were not able to obtain drugs, the primary reasons reported were that dealers were not available or that dealers did not have any to sell. In Maricopa County, heroin and crack sources were less available in 2001, while in Pima County marijuana and heroin dealers were less available. Powder cocaine dealers became somewhat more available in Maricopa County in 2001 while crack and methamphetamine sources were more available in 2001 in Pima County. Dealers in Maricopa County were more likely to be out of all drugs except for heroin in 2001. In Pima County, dealers were less likely to have powder cocaine and methamphetamine in 2001, while dealers were less likely to not have any marijuana, crack, and heroin.
This data can also be used to examine the role of the law enforcement in preventing drug transactions. For instance, in Maricopa County, police activity prevented more arrestees from obtaining marijuana, heroin, and methamphetamine in 2001 than in 2000. However, fewer arrestees in 2001 cited police activity as a reason they were unable to obtain crack or powder cocaine compared to 2000. In Pima County, police activity became a less important factor preventing acquisition of all five types of drugs in 2001.
Table 5.2: Percent of Arrestees with Failed Transactions and Reason for Failure (of those who reported obtaining each drug in the past 30 days)
|
|
Maricopa County |
Pima County |
||
|
|
2000 |
2001 |
2000 |
2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marijuana |
(n=1,132) |
(n=269) |
(n=488) |
(n=88) |
|
Percent with Failed Transaction |
41.7% |
26.4% |
31.9% |
24.8% |
|
No Dealers Available |
29.2 |
27.7 |
13.5 |
37.1 |
|
Dealers Did Not Have Any |
29.9 |
37.3 |
54.6 |
41.7 |
|
Dealers Did Not Have Quality |
9.7 |
16.2 |
1.1 |
9.6 |
|
Police Activity |
2.7 |
10.2 |
8.6 |
4.0 |
|
Other |
28.4 |
8.6 |
22.3 |
7.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crack |
(n=498) |
(n=201) |
(n=230) |
(n=72) |
|
Percent with Failed Transaction |
30.1 |
21.6 |
41.7 |
33.5 |
|
No Dealers Available |
19.4 |
24.9 |
39.7 |
35.8 |
|
Dealers Did Not Have Any |
27.7 |
35.3 |
36.0 |
23.7 |
|
Dealers Did Not Have Quality |
10.5 |
10.4 |
1.9 |
13.6 |
|
Police Activity |
16.4 |
9.5 |
14.1 |
8.8 |
|
Other |
26.1 |
20.0 |
8.3 |
18.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Powder Cocaine |
(n=357) |
(n=91) |
(n=278) |
(n=61) |
|
Percent with Failed Transaction |
22.5 |
17.9 |
32.1 |
20.5 |
|
No Dealers Available |
27.2 |
23.8 |
33.7 |
35.4 |
|
Dealers Did Not Have Any |
17.3 |
68.3 |
43.7 |
48.2 |
|
Dealers Did Not Have Quality |
6.7 |
2.6 |
1.8 |
0 |
|
Police Activity |
16.3 |
5.3 |
8.9 |
0 |
|
Other |
32.6 |
0 |
11.9 |
16.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heroin |
(n=184) |
(n=43) |
(n=73) |
(n=25) |
|
Percent with Failed Transaction |
22.2 |
14.3 |
26.0 |
3.8 |
|
No Dealers Available |
36.2 |
60.3 |
45.0 |
100.0 |
|
Dealers Did Not Have Any |
39.2 |
15.1 |
21.1 |
0 |
|
Dealers Did Not Have Quality |
8.6 |
5.2 |
0 |
0 |
|
Police Activity |
6.5 |
19.4 |
19.9 |
0 |
|
Other |
9.6 |
0 |
14.0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Methamphetamine |
(n=584) |
(n=181) |
(n=88) |
(n=31) |
|
Percent with Failed Transaction |
33.9 |
19.1 |
25.4 |
31.4 |
|
No Dealers Available |
17.8 |
18.4 |
17.8 |
0 |
|
Dealers Did Not Have Any |
40.8 |
44.3 |
58.4 |
71.6 |
|
Dealers Did Not Have Quality |
17.5 |
7.1 |
12.5 |
4.8 |
|
Police Activity |
3.6 |
13.3 |
11.3 |
0 |
|
Other |
20.3 |
16.9 |
0 |
23.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright Arizona Board of Regents Contact: CHS Webmaster