Crime, Law and Social Change

, Volume 73, Issue 1, pp 1–23 | Cite as

A supply-based response to a demand-driven problem: a fifteen-year analysis of drug interdiction in Poland

  • Diana S. DolliverEmail author


This study examined one key element of drug supply-reduction policies – drug interdiction – in the Central and Eastern European country of Poland. Poland is a nation that has experienced significant social, political, and cultural changes since the fall of communism, resulting in multiple reforms to their national policing model and drug laws. Poland is also uniquely situated in Europe as a consumer nation, a transit country for drugs, and a significant source of amphetamines. These factors place additional strain on agencies responsible for drug interdiction. To-date, however, the efficacy of police-driven interdiction efforts or factors that might impact the success of such policies (e.g., funding, strength of the police force, the number of drug-related crimes detected) have not been empirically examined in this setting. Thus, this study examined officially reported data in Poland over a 15-year time period (2001 to 2015) to determine how these factors were related to the seized amounts of heroin, cocaine, amphetamine, and herbal cannabis, given the historic national context. The main findings indicated that the cannabis and amphetamine markets were strongly linked, while user-based arrests related to particular drug-types (e.g., amphetamines) were found to be significantly related to seizures of different drug-types (e.g., heroin), suggesting possible market integration. Further, government expenditures for public safety were not found to be significantly associated with interdiction efforts.



  1. 1.
    European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). (2017a). European Drug Report 2017: Trends and Developments. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Council of Europe. (2005). Organized crime situation report 2005: Focus on the threat of economic crime. Council of Europe Publication.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dolliver, D. S. (2015a). Socio-cultural impacts on drug trafficking trends in Europe. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law, and Criminal Justice., 23(4), 383–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2010). The globalization of crime: A transnational organized crime threat assessment. United Nations publication printed in Austria. Sales No. E.10.IV.6 – June 2010 – 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Krajewski, K., & Wodowski, G. (2015). Historical steps and recent developments of drug Laws in Poland. In R. Soyer & S. Schumann (Eds.), Treatment versus Punishment for Drug Addiction. New York: SpringerBriefs in Criminology.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    European Commission. (2009). A report on global illicit drug markets 1998–2007. Council of Europe. European Communities Publication, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). (2017b). Poland 2017: Country Drug Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krajewski, K. (2004). Crime and criminal justice in Poland. European Journal of Criminology, 1, 377–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krajewski, K. (2001). Drug trafficking in Poland. In V. Ruggeiero, M. Scheinost, W. Valkenburg, & P. C. van Duyne (Eds.), Cross-Border Crime in a Changing Europe. Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Summers, D., & Pływaczewski, E. (2012). The polish context: Examining issues of police reform, drug use and drug trafficking in a transitioning democracy. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management., 35(2), 231–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Malczewski, A., Kidawa, M., Struzik, M., Stzelecka, A., Misiurek, A., & Leszczynska, M. (2014). Poland:’ New development, trends, and in-depth information on selected issues. 2014 National Drug Report (2013 data) to the EMCDDA by the polish REITOX focal point. Warsaw: NBDP Publication.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krajewski, K. (2003). Drugs, markets and criminal justice in Poland. Crime, Law and Social Change, 40, 273–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Siemaszko, A. (Ed.). (2000). Crime and law enforcement in Poland on the threshold of the 21st century. Warszawa: Instytut Wymiaru Sprawiedliwości & Oficyna Naukowa.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). (2014). Drug Policy Profile: Poland. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fudalej, S., Kolodziejczyk, I., Gajda, T., Majkowska-Zwolinska, B., & Wojnar, M. (2013). Manganese-induced parkinsonism among Ephedron users and drug policy in Polamd. Journal of Addiction Medicine, 7(4), 302–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jahnz-Rozyk, K., Kawalec, P., Malinowksi, K., & Czok, K. (2017). Drug Policy in Poland. Value in Health Regional Issue., 13C, 23–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kawalec, P., Sagan, A., Stawowczyk, E., Kowalska-Bobko, I., & Mokrzycka, A. (2016). Implementation of the 2011 reimbursement act in Poland: Desired and undesired effects of the changes in reimbursement policy. Health Policy, 120, 356–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moravek, J. (2008). Problem drug use, marijuana, and European projects: How epidemiology helped Czech policy reformers. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 2(2), 26–39.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pływaczewski, E., & Walancik, P. (2004). Challenges and changes to the police system in Poland. In M. Caparini & O. Marenin (Eds.), Transforming police in central and Eastern Europe: Process and Progress (pp. 93–114). London: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Journal of Laws. (2001). Police act dated April 6, 1990 chapter 1 general provisions article. Accessed 30 July 2017.
  21. 21.
    Council for Counteracting Drug Addiction (CCDA). (2017). Homepage. Accessed 12 July 2017.
  22. 22.
    Organized Crime Threat Assessment (OCTA). (2011). European Union Organized Crime Threat Assessment 2011. The Hague: EUROPOL: European Police Office Publications.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reuter, P. (2009). Can production and trafficking of illicit drugs be reduced or only shifted? Policy research working paper; no. 4564. Washington DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Paoli, L., & Fijnaut, C. (2006). Organised crime and its control policies. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice., 14(13), 307–327.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pływaczewski, E. (1997). Organised crime in Poland. Transnational Organized Crime., 3(3), 109–125.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). (2017c). Ukraine Country Overview. Accessed 11 Aug 2017.
  27. 27.
    Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). (2004). Cooking up a storm: Amphetamine production and trafficking in Poland. DEA intelligence production unit: Drug Intelligence Brief.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    EUROPOL. (2011). Europol Organized Crime Threat Assessment 2011. The Hauge, the Netherlands. Accessed at: Accessed Oct 28 2018.
  29. 29.
    European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). (2012). Country overview: Poland. Accessed at: Accessed 28 Oct 2018.
  30. 30.
    Krawczyk, W, M. Kidawa, and A. Strzelecka. (2009). Problem amphetamine use, related consequences and responses, centrum informacji o narkotykach l narkomanii, 2009 National Report to the EMCDDA by the Reitox national focal point, Warsaw.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). (2017g). Statistical Bulletin 2017. Accessed 30 May 2017.
  32. 32.
    Cullen, J. B., Praveen Parboteeah, K., & Hoegl, M. (2004). Cross-national differences in managers’ willingness to justify ethically suspect behaviors: A test of IAT. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 411–421.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dolliver, D. S. (2015b). Cultural and institutional adaptation and change in Europe: A test of institutional anomie theory using time series modelling of homicide data. British Journal of Criminology, 55, 747–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Maume, M. O., & Lee, M. R. (2003). Social institutions and violence: a sub-national test of IAT. Criminology, 41, 1137–1172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Messner, S. F., & Rosenfeld, R. (1997). Political restrain of the market and levels of criminal homicide: a cross-national application of IAT. Social Forces, 75(4), 1393–1416.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kleck, G., & Barnes, J. C. (2014). Do more police lead to more crime deterrence? Crime & Delinquency, 60(5), 716–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kelling, G., Pate, T., Dieckman, D., & Brown, C. (1974). The Kansas City preventive patrol experiment: Technical report. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Police Foundation. (1981). The Newark foot patrol experiment. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    McCarty, W. P., Ren, L., & Zhao, J. S. (2012). Determinants of police strength in large U.S. cities during the 1990s. Crime & Delinquency, 58(3), 397–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Eurostat. (2017). Government expenditure on public order and safety. Accessed 14 April 2017.
  41. 41.
    Maltz, M. (2010). Look before you analyze: Visualizing data in criminal justice. In A. R. Piquero & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative criminology. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    LAERD. (2017a). Pearson’s correlation using Stata. Accessed 16 July 2017.
  43. 43.
    Evans, J. D. (1996). Straightforward statistics for the behavior sciences. Independence: Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    LAERD. (2017b). Partial correlation using SPSS statistics. Accessed 16 July 2017.
  45. 45.
    Adamski, A. (1994). World Factbook of criminal justice systems: Poland. Bureau of Justice Statistics Grant No. 90-BJ-CX-0002. 1 Aug 2017.
  46. 46.
    World Bank. (2017). Population statistics: Poland. Accessed 15 July 2017.
  47. 47.
    Corman H & Mocan NH. (2000). “A time-series analysis of crime, deterrence, and drug abuse in New York City,” American Economic Review, 90 (3), 584–604.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). (2017d). Czech Republic 2017: Country Drug Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). (2017e). Slovakia Country Overview. Accessed 11 Aug 2017.
  50. 50.
    European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). (2017f). Belarus Country Overview. Accessed 11 Aug 2017.
  51. 51.
    Psenkova, M. B., Visnansky, M., Mackovicova, S., & Tomek, D. (2017). Drug Policy in Slovakia. Value in Health Regional Issues., 13, 44–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Department of Criminology and Criminal JusticeThe University of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSA

Personalised recommendations