For most of the past 25 years, the federal government and many states have adopted a tough, punitive approach to drug offenses. In recent years, changes in public perception and state budget shortfalls have spurred a policy reform movement across the political spectrum that advocates diverting low-level, nonviolent drug offenders into treatment rather than incarcerating them. In nine of the 24 states where ballot initiatives are permitted, citizens have attempted or have successfully placed initiatives on the ballot since 1996. In an additional 12 states, drug policy reformers have successfully passed legislation that allows for diversion. In this paper we briefly trace the history of the diversion-to-treatment policy reform movement, identify the successful diversion-related ballot initiatives and enacted laws from each state, and, using a qualitative content analysis approach, describe the nature and extent of those laws. Finally, we discuss the implications of these differences for state criminal justice policies.

No abstract

This paper reports on key informant (KI) and focus group interviews exploring the relationships between methamphetamine small toxic lab (STL) seizures and related activity, and methamphetamine precursor laws. The primary purposes of the KI and focus group interviews were to: 1) examine KIs' perceptions of the impact of their state's precursor laws; 2) explore KIs' perceptions of the organizational and procedural facilitators and barriers to successful implementation of the law(s); and 3) evaluate KIs' perceptions of the relative importance of various precursor law provisions. Research questions included: 1) What were KIs' perceptions of the impact of their state's precursor laws?; and 2) What were KIs' perceptions of the organizational and procedural facilitators and barriers to the successful development and implementation of the law in their state? This paper is the qualitative analysis companion to (1) a documentation of state methamphetamine precursor laws/regulations in effect as of October 1, 2005 by O'Connor et al. 1 ; and (2) a paper reporting on quantitative analyses related to methamphetamine STL seizures also prepared for the National Institute of Justice by McBride et al 2. Methodology State Selection. State selection drew upon available state-level data regarding the extent of methamphetamine STL seizures and extant state and Federal legal frameworks attempting to reduce the availability of methamphetamine precursors. States were also considered based on consumers' degree of access to pseudoephedrine (PSE) products. The states selected for the interviews included: 1) INDIANA-mid-western state with a high number of STL seizures; no controlled substances scheduling requirements; no centralized tracking system for PSE purchases 2) KENTUCKY-southern state with high number of STL seizures; no controlled substance scheduling requirements; pharmacy sales only; no centralized tracking system. 3) MISSOURI-mid-western state with highest number of STL seizures in nation; Schedule V (pharmacy sales only) controlled substance requirements; no centralized tracking system.

No abstract