Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Journal of Drug Policy Analysis

A Journal of Substance Abuse Control Policy

Ed. by Kleiman, Mark / Kilmer, Beau

CiteScore 2018: 0.29

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.416
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.120

See all formats and pricing
More options …

Cost Analysis of the Country of Georgia’s Street Level Drug Testing Policy

Dessa Bergen-Cico / David Otiashvili / Irma Kirtadze
  • Addiction Research Centre, Alternative Georgia, Tbilisi, Georgia
  • Business School, Ilia State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Tomas Zabransky / Vano Tsertsvadze
Published Online: 2017-10-07 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jdpa-2017-0003



In 2006 the country of Georgia implemented Article 45 of the Administrative code and Article 273 of the Criminal Code of Georgia, a public policy that enable police to detain any individual, anywhere, at any time on grounds of suspicion of drug use; and require them to submit to urine screening to test for the presence of illegal drugs and their metabolites. This policy is referred to as the street drug testing policy. Positive drug screening results in fines and potential jail time. The purpose of this paper is to conduct a cost analysis of this policy and assess the execution of the policy and the extent to which the policy meets its stated aims.


This study employed cost analysis methodology to calculate annual direct material and labor costs associated with carrying out Georgia’s street level drug testing policy. These costs encompassed law enforcement, drug testing, associated judicial processes, imprisonment and income offset through fines collected during the two years covered in this study (2008 and 2014). In addition, we measured: fidelity of the execution of the policy measured by the accuracy of the percentage of people detained who were found to actually have used drugs; and the policy’s effectiveness in deterring drug use among those who tested positive. Impact on drug use behavior was measured through impact analysis interviews conducted with a national sample of 500 detainees who tested positive for drugs under Article 45 and Article 273.


Using conservative financial estimates the cost of carrying out the policy offset by fine revenues broke even in 2008 (−111,889 GEL); however, by 2014 the costs increased 20 % in conjunction with an 18 % increase in the number of people detained for testing. However, the percentage of people who tested positive for drugs declined 39 % indicating decreased fidelity in the execution of the policy; accompanied by a financial imbalance of −10,277,909 GEL. Moreover, effectiveness analysis revealed that within one month of being detained and having tested positive for drug use, over 90 % of individuals had returned to pre-detention drug use levels, and within 12 months 100 % of detainees had resumed prior drug use behaviors.


The financial costs associated with Georgia’s street level drug screening policy has rapidly increased while becoming decreasingly accurate and efficient in its execution. Moreover, data indicates that the policy is not effective in reducing or stopping drug use among those who tested positive. In conclusion, it is fiscally unsustainable to continue the policy as it is being executed and the policy is ineffective in changing drug use behavior among people who use illegal substances.

Keywords: drug testing; drug policy; cost analysis


  • Alavidze, S., N. Duchidze, I. Kirtadze, D. Otiashvili, M. Razmadze, L. Sturua, and J. Javakhishvili. 2016. The Drug Situation in Georgia, Annual Report 2015. Tbilisi, Georgia.Google Scholar

  • Bergen-Cico, D. 2013. “Perspectives of US Drug Policy: Observations and Advice from Drug Policy Administrators in Emerging Democracies in Central and Eastern Europe.” World Medical & Health Policy 5 (4):362–389.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bergen-Cico, D., K. Sikharulidze, N. Invanashvili, M. Ivanishvili, and T. Keshelava. 2017. “Risk and Protective Factors of Drug Policy in the Republic of Georgia: An Examination of Hepatitis C Epidemic among High-Risk Populations.” World Medical and Health Policy 9 (1):45–64.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bewley-Taylor, D.R. 2003. “Challenging the UN Drug Control Conventions: Problems and Possibilities.” International Journal of Drug Policy 14 (2):171–179.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bouscaillou, J., J. Champagnat, N. Luhmann, E. Avril, I. Inaridze, V. Miollany, K. Labartkava, I. Kirtadze, M. Butsashvili, G. Kamkaidze, and D. Patuat. 2014. “Hepatitis C among People Who Inject Drugs in Tbilisi, Georgia: An Urgent Need for Prevention and Treatment.” International Journal of Drug Policy 25 (5):871–878.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). 2015. European Drug Report Trends and Developments 2015. Lisbon. doi:CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gamkrelidze, A., J. Javakhishvili, D. Kariauli, G. Lejava, K. Stvilia, K. Todadze, and M. &Tsintsadze. 2004. Drug Situation in Georgia – 2003. Tbilisi, Georgia: Southern Caucasus Anti-Drug Programme. Report UDC 615.015.6 (479.22) Accessed February 16, 2016 http://altgeorgia.ge/2012/myfiles/Drug-situation-in-Georgia-2003.pdf.

  • Garrison, R.H., E.C. Noreen, and P.C. Brewer. 2009. Managerial Accounting, 13th. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.Google Scholar

  • Grover, A. 2010. The War on Drugs: Undermining Human Rights. Bristol: Count the Costs.Google Scholar

  • Hall, W., T. Babor, G. Edwards, R. Laranjeira, J. Marsden, P. Miller, I. Obot, N. Petry, T. Thamarangsi, and R. West. 2012. “Compulsory Detention, Forced Detoxification and Enforced Labour are Not Ethically Acceptable or Effective Ways to Treat Addiction.” Addiction 107 (11):1891–1893.CrossrefWeb of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Head, B.W. 2016. “Toward More “Evidence‐Informed” Policy Making?” Public Administration Review 76 (3):472–484.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Heckathorn, D.D. 2002. “Respondent-Driven Sampling II: Deriving Valid Population Estimates from Chain-Referral Samples of Hidden Populations.” Social Problems 49 (1):11–34.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Huddleston III, C.W., D.B. Marlowe, and R. Casebolt. 2008. A National report card on drug courts and other problem-solving court programs in the United States. U.S. Department of Justice. Volume II No. 1.Google Scholar

  • Javakhishvili, J., D. Otiashvili, and M. Tabatadze. 2015. The Drug Situation in Georgia, Annual Report 2013, ISBN 978-9941-07851-1, Tbilisi, Georgia.Google Scholar

  • Javakhishvili, J., D. Otiashvili, M. Tabatadze, and D. Bergen-Cico. 2016. The Drug Situation in Georgia, Annual Report 2014, ISBN 978-9941-0-7851-4, Tbilisi, Georgia.Google Scholar

  • Javakhishvili, J., and L. Sturua. 2009. Drug Situation in Georgia 2008. Tbilisi, Georgia: Southern Caucasus Anti-Drug Programme.Google Scholar

  • Kiknadze, N., and D. Otiashvili. 2007. “Georgia: Anti-Drug Law Violates Human Rights. HIV AIDS.” Policy Law Review 12 (2–3):69–70.Google Scholar

  • Magnani, R., K. Sabin, T. Saidel, and D. Heckathorn. 2005. “Review of Sampling Hard-to-Reach and Hidden Populations for HIV Surveillance.” AIDS 19, S67–S72.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ministry of Corrections and Legal Assistance of Georgia. 2009. 2008 Budget and Expenditures. Retrieved June 1, 2016 http://www.moc.gov.ge/en/statistics/annual-report.

  • Ministry of Corrections and Legal Assistance of Georgia. 2014. 2013 Budget and Expentidures. Retrieved June 1, 2016 http://www.moc.gov.ge/en/statistics/annual-report.

  • Ministry of Corrections Health Care Standard of Penitentiary System 2015. Order No 31. Issued 22, April, 2015. http://matsne.gov.ge.

  • Ministry of Finance of Georgia. 2009. 2008 State Budget of Georgia. Retrieved February 1, 2016 from http://www.mof.ge/common/get_doc.aspx?doc_id=4036.

  • Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia. 2009a. 2008 Budget and Expenditure. Tbilisi: GeorgiaGoogle Scholar

  • Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia. 2009b. 2008 Drug Testing Statistics. Tbilisi, Georgia: Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia.Google Scholar

  • Ministry of Labor Health and Social Affairs Georgia (MoLHSA) and National Center for Disease Control and Public Health of Georgia and Public Health (NCDC). 2015. Health Care Statistical Yearbook 2014 Georgia. Tbilisi, Georgia: MoLHSA and NCDC.Google Scholar

  • Moreira, M., F. Trigueiros, and C. Antunes. 2007. “The Evaluation of the Portuguese Drug Policy 1999–2004: The Process and the Impact on the New Policy.” Drugs and Alcohol Today 7 (2):14–25.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • National Bank of Georgia (NBG) (n d) Accessed January 27, 2017 https://www.nbg.gov.ge/index.php?m=306&lng=eng.

  • National Statistics Office of Georgia. 2009. Statistical Yearbook of Georgia 2009a. Tbilisi, Georgia. Retrieved September 22, 2017, http://www.geostat.ge/index.php?action=wnews&lang=eng&npid=2.

  • National Statistics Office of Georgia. 2014. Statistical Yearbook of Georgia 2014. Tbilisi, Georgia Retrieved September 22, 2017, http://www.geostat.ge/index.php?action=wnews&lang=eng&npid=351.

  • Ogilvie, J., and K. Willis. 2009. “Police Drugdiversion in Australia.” Criminal Justice Bulletin Series 3:1–10.Google Scholar

  • Otiashvili, D., M. Tabatadze, N. Balanchivadze, and I. Kirtadze. 2016. “Policing, Massive Street Drug Testing and Poly-Substance Use Chaos in Georgia–A Policy Case Study.” Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy 11 (4):1–12. doi: .CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Payne, J., M. Kwiatkowski, and J. Wundersitz. 2008. Police Drug Diversion: A Study of Criminal Offending Outcomes. Research and Public Policy Series. No. 97. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.Google Scholar

  • Stevens, A., M. Trace, and D. Bewley-Taylor. 2005. “Reducing Drug-Related Crime: An Overview of the Global Evidence. Report Five.” The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme.Google Scholar

  • United Nations. 1998. Commentary on the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1988, Vienna Austria 20 December 1988. New York: United Nations Publications. E/CN.7/590.Google Scholar

  • United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC). 2003. Investing in Drug Abuse Treatment, A Discussion Paper for Policy Makers. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar

  • Vearrier, D., J.A. Curtis, and M.I. Greenberg. 2010. “Biological Testing for Drugs of Abuse. pp. 489–517.” In Molecular, Clinical and Environmental Toxicology: Clinical Toxicology, edited by A. Luch, Vol. 2. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar

  • World Health Organization (WHO). 2009. Assessment of Compulsory Treatment of People Who Use Drugs in Cambodia, China, Malaysia and Viet Nam: An Application of Selected Human Rights Principles. Manila: WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-10-07

Citation Information: Journal of Drug Policy Analysis, Volume 10, Issue 2, 20170003, ISSN (Online) 1941-2851, ISSN (Print) 2194-6337, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jdpa-2017-0003.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in