Introduction

From the crack cocaine epidemic of the 1980s to the ongoing opioid crisis dating back to the early 2000s, drug epidemics in the United States are nothing new and continue to take lives with each new wave of drug abuse. The drug overdose death rate increased from 8.9 deaths per 100,000 people in 2003 to a striking 32.6 in 2022. In response, lawmakers have turned to a variety of policy making strategies to combat these deaths. To gain better insight into the recent US drug epidemics and the effectiveness of the policies surrounding their upsurges, we can turn to New York State as a representative case. We explored data on drug arrests across New York State counties and cross-referenced trends with relevant state drug laws. Through our analysis, we hope to gain further insight into the intricate relationship between legislation and drug arrests as well as guide policymakers to which drug abuse prevention strategies are the most effective.

Opioids

At the turn of the 21st century, New York—and the country—saw a dramatic increase in opioid prescriptions. Between 1999 and 2010, the number of prescriptions dispensed by U.S. retailers soared, driven by pharmaceutical marketing and a growing emphasis on treating chronic pain. In New York State alone, prescriptions ballooned nationally from 116 million in 1999 to nearly 200 million by 2011. However this was unfortunately just the beginning of a larger crisis.

The chart below shows two distinct but entangled lines: one for the volume of prescriptions and another for opioid-related deaths. While the initial spike in prescriptions may have been framed as a sign of improved pain management, it ultimately laid the groundwork for addiction on a massive scale.

Deaths lagged behind prescriptions by a few years—until around 2006–2007, when mortality rates began to climb. By 2014, the number of opioid deaths in New York State had more than tripled compared to the early 2000s. Prescriptions were rising unchecked for years, but the cost in lives came shortly after.

Overdose deaths and felony drug arrests in New York City remained high, particularly in boroughs like the Bronx and Brooklyn.

While prescription opioids like oxycodone and hydrocodone are FDA-approved medications, misuse—such as possession without a prescription or diversion for sale—can lead to criminal charges. Importantly, not all opioid-related offenses result in felony arrests. Charges depend on the substance involved (e.g., heroin vs. oxycodone), the quantity, and intent (personal use vs. distribution). In our analysis, we focus on aggregate felony drug arrests, which include—but are not limited to—opioids. This distinction is important: the line between medical use and criminalization is often blurry, especially in the context of addiction.

Rather than prioritizing addiction treatment or prevention, the early 2000s still reflected a legacy of punitive enforcement inherited from the War on Drugs era. This culture echoed the punitive philosophy of the 1973 Rockefeller Drug Laws, which imposed mandatory minimum sentences—even for minor drug offenses—and helped shape decades of incarceration-focused policy.

Even though the police cracked down on drugs such as Marajuana and Cocaine, the prescribed opioids took more lives as they gained traction.

Biggest Drug Laws

New York has many laws regarding drug possession and sale crimes, each with different penalties and degrees of crime. Violating any of these laws is classified as a felony, with substantial fines and years in prison as potential punishment, with enhanced penalties for repeat drug offenders.

NY Penal §§ 220.03 to 220.25 details all of the controlled substances people are not allowed to possess, usually indicating an amount they cannot exceed. This includes both broad categories for drugs (e.g. NY Penal 220.16 mentions hallucinogens and stimulants), and specific ones (e.g. cannabis for NY Penal §§ 220.25). A controlled substance is one that is “tightly controlled by the government because it may be abused or cause addiction”. There are also laws regarding the possession of manufacturing material and precursors for methamphetamine (NY Penal §§ 220.70 to 220.75), and marijuana (NY Penal §§ 221.10 to 221.30) specifically.

NY Penal §§ 220.31 to 220.44 specifies all of the drugs people are not allowed to sell. There are also specific selling conditions that are singled out, such as selling near schools (NY Penal § 220.44), to minors (NY Penal § 220.48), marijuana specifically (NY Penal §§ 221.35 to 221.55), and operating as a major trafficker (NY Penal § 220.77).

The New York State Penal laws explicitly name the drugs in the following graph – highlighting them as the city’s most prevalent and problematic drugs. These are important as the laws specify broad categories but also these specific drugs by name, possibly indicating their notoriety and the police force’s focus on policing them.

The figure shows that in the NY Penal Laws, methamphetamine is the most regulated, with PCP and marijuana being tied for the second most. This is unsurprising, as marijuana and methamphetamine have many laws associated with them concerning manufacturing and possession. Marijuana is highly politicized nowadays and more readily available, while methamphetamine is known for being lab-made with hazardous chemicals that can be extremely dangerous, and is often linked to broader criminal activity.

However, a potential shortcoming of the pie chart is that it only looks at drugs that were explicitly named. Most of the penal laws name controlled substances through categories such as depressants, hallucinogens, stimulants, and narcotics. Naming these large categories shows an effort to increase the range of policing on controlled substances, and was also realistically used for brevity in legal documents. The distribution of these broader categories was explored in a donut chart.

The most frequently named drugs were hallucinogens, with stimulants being second. Opioids and depressants are the two categories with the lowest percentage of being named. The only depressant specifically named is GHB, whereas in contrast, specific hallucinogens are frequently named (PCP, ketamine, LSD). Cannabinoids alone represent 16%, while being a very narrow category, continuing to emphasize the focus on regulating marijuana in New York. A shortcoming of this graph is that drug categories often include overlap (for example, opioids are depressants but the opposite is not true). Something to mention is that the laws use the word narcotics, but it isn’t very precise and historically has referred to opioids and other illegal drugs such as methamphetamine, so it was not used as a category in the donut chart.

Does punishing people for drug use actually work in decreasing usage and deaths? Policy makers seem to think so, but making something illegal may just incentivize more illicit activity and dangerous drug use. Previous historical phenomena such as Prohibition, and the recent push for the legalization of marijuana question this supposed fact.

Crime Displacement vs. Diffusion of Benefits

As we look into New York’s evolving drug laws, a key question emerges: How effective are these policies at reducing drug-related crime? To answer that, researchers proposed two distinct ideas, crime displacement vs diffusion of benefits. The crime displacement theory is the relocation of crime from one place, time, target, offense, or tactic to another as a result of some crime prevention initiative. On the other hand, diffusion of benefits reflects the ideal outcome, where crime prevention efforts targeted at a specific problem in one location may have a positive impact on other locations or crimes.

By comparing regional patterns in felony drug arrests, we aim to determine whether these efforts lead to displacement or diffusion. We focused our analysis on two multi-county regions: Western New York (Erie County) and the Capital Region (Schenectady County). These two counties participated in the New York State initiative, Operation IMPACT (Integrated Municipal Police Anti-Crime Teams), which as a result received higher police presence in the area targeted towards decreasing crimes such as drug use. Our goal is to understand not only how state policies affect individual counties, but how those effects might —positively or negatively— affect surrounding regions.

In Western New York, we found signs of crime displacement. Felony drug arrests in Erie County dropped between 2005 and 2015, while neighboring counties Niagara and Wyoming experienced a rise. This shift suggests that the increased police presence due to Operation IMPACT in Erie may have pushed drug activity into adjacent, less-monitored areas.

In contrast, findings in the Capital Region were more complex. Felony drug arrests in Schenectady County showed inconsistent trends, with periods of both increases and decreases between 2005 and 2015. Neighboring counties like Albany and Schoharie mirrored these fluctuations. Rather than clear evidence of either displacement or diffusion of benefits, this region exhibited what might be simply called a diffusion of effects, where intervention impacts appear to spread across the region, not necessarily improving or worsening drug felony rates.

Our findings suggest that the effects of drug enforcement strategies like Operation IMPACT are highly dependent on the region. In speculation, the lack of consistent outcomes across counties may be the consequence of the uneven distribution of resources such as drug courts, treatment programs, and mental health services. Further research on this topic will help shed light on the effectiveness of different drug policies in reducing crime as a whole rather than in the short term or at the cost of something else.

As drug-related challenges continue to evolve, a data-driven approach that considers regional patterns, long-term trends, and can provide multiple perspectives to drug laws are created, implemented and enforced.

Works Cited

--- Garnett, Matthew F., and Arialdi M. Miniño. “Drug Overdose Deaths in the United States, 2003–2023.” US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 19 Dec. 2024, www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db522.htm

--- IMS Health. National Prescription Audit. Data for 1997–2013, extracted 2014. Accessed via NIDA article (Figure 1) on October 23, 2016.

--- IMS Health. Vector One: National. Data for 1991–1996, extracted 2011. Accessed via NIDA article (Figure 1) on October 23, 2016.

--- Wikipedia contributors, “Crack epidemic in the United States,” Wikipedia, last modified April 2024, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_epidemic_in_the_United_States.

--- Laura Sullivan, “The Drug Laws That Changed How We Punish,” NPR, February 14, 2013, https://www.npr.org/2013/02/14/171822608/the-drug-laws-that-changed-how-we-punish.

--- National Cancer Institute, “Controlled Substance,” NCI Dictionary of Cancer Terms, https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/controlled-substance.

--- Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), “Prescription Opioids,” https://www.camh.ca/en/health-info/mental-illness-and-addiction-index/prescription-opioids.

--- The Right Step Houston, “What’s the Difference Between Opioids and Narcotics?” https://www.rightsteprehabhouston.com/rehab-blog/whats-the-difference-between-opioids-and-narcotics.

--- Connecticut General Assembly, “Narcotics and Controlled Substances: Definitions and Laws,” 2015-R-0304, https://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/rpt/2015-R-0304.htm.

--- New York State Senate, “NY Penal Law § 220.16: Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree,” https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/220.16.

--- New York State Senate, “NY Penal Law § 220.25: Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance,” https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/220.25.

--- National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), “Methamphetamine Research Report,” https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/methamphetamine.

--- Guerette, Rob T. "Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion." Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, 2009. Accessed April 14, 2025. https://popcenter.asu.edu/content/tool-guides-analyzing-crime-displacement-and-diffusion-page-2.

--- “Diffusion of Benefits.” Encyclopedia of Victimology and Crime Prevention, 2010. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412979993.n95.

--- New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. Operation IMPACT: 2009 Annual Report. Albany, NY: New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, 2009. https://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/impact/2009annualreport.pdf.

--- New York State Department of Labor. "Annual Population Estimates for New York State and Counties: Beginning 1970." Last modified April 4, 2024. https://data.ny.gov/Government-Finance/Annual-Population-Estimates-for-New-York-State-and/krt9-ym2k/data_preview.