Pompo

Serious Crime Down, Drug Arrests Hold Steady, But Marijuana Arrests Increase to 872,000
9/19/08|Drug War Chronicle - StoptheDrugWar.org| from Drug War Chronicle, Issue #552



Nearly 1.9 million people were arrested on drug charges in the United States last year, some 872,000 for marijuana offenses, according to the FBI's annual Uniform Crime Report, released Monday. While overall drug arrest figures declined marginally (down 84,000), marijuana arrests increased by more than 5% and are once again at an all-time high. Drug arrests exceed those for any other type of offense, including property crime (1.61 million arrests), driving under the influence (1.43 million), misdemeanor assaults (1.31 million), larceny (1.17 million), and violent crime (597,000).



People arrested for drug offenses face not only the distinct possibility of serving time in jail or prison -- drug offenders account for roughly 20% of all prisoners, and well more than half of all federal prisoners -- but also face collateral consequences that can haunt them for the rest of their lives. In addition to carrying the burden of a criminal record, drug offenders can lose access to various state and federal benefits, including students loans, food stamps, and public assistance, as well as being barred from obtaining professional licenses, and in some states, other consequences such as having their drivers' licenses suspended.

The high level of drug arrests comes as overall drug use rates remain roughly at the level they were 30 years ago. In the meantime, state, local, and federal authorities have spent hundreds of billions of dollars and arrested tens of millions of people in the name of drug prohibition.

The increase in drug arrests comes as the overall crime rate decreased. Violent crime was down 0.7% over 2006 and property crime was down 1.4%, marking the fifth consecutive year of declining numbers. All seven categories in the FBI's list of serious criminal offenses -- murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, and car theft -- saw declines last year. But not drug arrests.

The rate of drug arrests was highest in the West (677.5 per 100,000), followed by the South (664.5), the Midwest (549.6), and the Northeast (508.0). Nationally, the drug arrest rate was 614.8 per 100,000.

Of those arrested on pot charges, 775,000, or 89%, were charged only with possession, a figure similar to that for drug arrests overall. Another 97,000 pot offenders were charged with "sale/manufacture," a category that includes all cultivation or sales offenses, even those involving small-scale violations. Marijuana arrests last year accounted for 47.5% of all drug arrests. Almost three-quarters of marijuana arrests involved people under the age of 30.

The continuing high levels of drug arrests and the increase in marijuana arrests prompted sharp responses from drug reformers. "For more than 30 years, the US has treated drug use and misuse as a criminal justice matter instead of a public health issue," said Bill Piper, national affairs director for the Drug Policy Alliance. "Yet, despite hundreds of billions of dollars spent and millions of Americans incarcerated, illegal drugs remain cheap, potent and widely available in every community; and the harms associated with them -- addiction, overdose, and the spread of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis -- continue to mount. Meanwhile, the war on drugs has created new problems of its own, including rampant racial disparities in the criminal justice system, broken families, increased poverty, unchecked federal power, and eroded civil liberties. Continuing the failed war on drugs year after year is throwing good money and lives after bad."

Marijuana reform organizations naturally zeroed in on the pot arrest figures. "Most Americans have no idea of the massive effort going into a war on marijuana users that has completely failed to curb marijuana use," said Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, DC. "Just this summer a new World Health Organization study of 17 countries found that we have the highest rate of marijuana use, despite some of the strictest marijuana laws and hyper-aggressive enforcement. With government at all levels awash in debt, this is an insane waste of resources. How long will we keep throwing tax dollars at failed policies?"

"These numbers belie the myth that police do not target and arrest minor cannabis offenders," said NORML executive director Allen St. Pierre, who noted that at current rates, a cannabis consumer is arrested every 37 seconds in America. "This effort is a tremendous waste of criminal justice resources that diverts law enforcement personnel away from focusing on serious and violent crime, including the war on terrorism."

"It's time for a new bottom line for US drug policy -- one that focuses on reducing the cumulative death, disease, crime and suffering associated with both drug misuse and drug prohibition," said Piper. "A good start would be enacting short- and long-term national goals for reducing the problems associated with both drugs and the war on drugs. Such goals should include reducing social problems like drug addiction, overdose deaths, the spread of HIV/AIDS from injection drug use, racial disparities in the criminal justice system, and the enormous number of nonviolent offenders behind bars. Federal drug agencies should be judged -- and funded -- according to their ability to meet these goals."

Piper agreed with the marijuana reform advocates that the marijuana laws are a good place to start. "Policymakers should especially stop wasting money arresting and incarcerating people for nothing more than possession of marijuana for personal use," he said. "There's no need to be afraid of what voters might think; the American people are already there. Substantial majorities favor legalizing marijuana for medical use (70% to 80%) and fining recreational marijuana users instead of arresting and jailing them (61% to 72%). Twelve states have legalized marijuana for medical use and 12 states have decriminalized recreational marijuana use (six states have done both)."

As Piper noted, marijuana law reform is happening, but it's not happening at fast enough a pace to slow the number of pot arrests. Alaska remains the only state to allow for the legal possession of marijuana (in one's home). A federal decriminalization bill was introduced this year for the first time since the Jimmy Carter presidency, but no one thinks it will get anywhere anytime soon. And even decriminalization means that marijuana users are still punished for their choice of substance, as well as having their property stolen by law enforcement.

The situation is even more bleak when it comes to non-pot drug offenders. There is virtually no impetus to rein back the war on them, and even the reform efforts that could reduce their numbers in prison, such as the Nonviolent Drug Offender Rehabilitation Act on the California ballot this fall, would not do anything to reduce the number of arrests. It would merely funnel those arrested into coerced treatment instead of prison.

Barring serious radical reform efforts to end the war on drugs -- and not merely ameliorate its most outrageous manifestations -- there is little reason to expect we will have anything different to report when it comes to drug arrests next year or the year after that.

o_t00high_o

I agree with most of what is said in this article. Except for that fact that they rope in marijuana with all the other more harmful drugs. Marijuana laws should be majorly reformed because marijuana isn't any more harmful than cigarettes or alcohol, nor more addictive. Now someone who does crack, acid and the like should not be treated the same as a marijuana user. I agree with not jailing them, but decriminalizing those drugs is idiotic. They are harmful, addictive and offer nor medicinal purposes. The end of the article even says

"The situation is even more bleak when it comes to non-pot drug offenders. There is virtually no impetus to rein back the war on them, and even the reform efforts that could reduce their numbers in prison, such as the Nonviolent Drug Offender Rehabilitation Act on the California ballot this fall, would not do anything to reduce the number of arrests. It would merely funnel those arrested into coerced treatment instead of prison."

Isn't that what should happen, they be sent to treatment? What else do they propose happen? Send someone possessing crack merrily on their way with a citation? NO. That groups marijuana in with all the "hard" drugs and only hurts our factual and just argument for decriminalizing/legalizing marijuana.

So come to think of it, this article is horrible.

Buzzby

I get that you don't like them. What I don't get is why, unless they harm someone else, it's anyone's business but the people who are using them. The last time I looked, it was generally the individual's business if he wanted to harm himself, not the State's.

Considering your feelings about drugs other than marijuana ("harmful, addictive and offer no medicinal purposes"), do you think people should be coerced into treatment because they drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes? If not, why not?

Only if they seek it. Otherwise, it nobody's business but their own.

As long as they aren't harming someone else, why not? Why even bother with a citation? If someone is walking down the street with a sealed bottle of Jack Daniels, he's not subject to any penalties, and alcohol is the cause of more violence, death, and destruction than any other mind-altering substance. For shear deadliness, nothing on Earth surpasses tobacco.

While it's true that marijuana is a special case because of public perception of it as a "soft" drug, prohibition in itself is a lost cause. It doesn't work, it has never worked, and it never will work. What it does is drive prices so high that people have to commit crimes to maintain their supply. What it does is place people in a position where they're afraid to seek help because they're afraid of getting busted. What it does is make violent criminal organizations huge and wealthy. Prohibition does nothing to help people and much to hurt them.

I agree that marijuana legalization efforts shouldn't be conflated with efforts to legalize all currently illicit drugs. The public simply isn't ready for that great a leap. OTOH, no government should be able to tell an individual what he or she mayt put in his or her body.

Only if you haven't thought it through...

__________________

o_t00high_o

Knowing full well this is probably argument suicide, I'm going to attempt to debate with you.
With that said, here I go.

Yes it is. But it is illegal still, and I know, so is marijuana. But there are valid arguments and reasons as to why it may be a mistake for marijuana to be illegal or at least so heavily policed. Find me some progress in getting crack legalized and then you may have me differ my opinion. And if you don't like the fact that the government is trying to control what you put in your body, then either move to another country where they won't and suffer the horrible living conditions more than likely associated with that, or legitimately try to change the law. Also, harder drugs don't just necessarily just harm the user, crack, ice and the like,I would imagine, contribute more to violence and poverty than weed will ever.

Why would they be coerced into treatment for doing something totally legal? Also, point me to a place where over use of cigarettes has caused the downfall of a community like a narcotic has.

But it isn't. It is against the law to have it, and by knowingly breaking the law and getting caught, they made it others' business. What I'm saying is that instead of going to jail they should be sent to treatment. What you're saying is equivalent to saying they should go to jail only if they seek it. Otherwise its nobody's business. We both know full well the majority of addicts and users will never willingly go to either one.

Again, one could say that they do harm others with their use. And also again, as deadly as alcohol and tobacco is, they are still legal. It might not make any sense when looking at any and all illegal/legal substances, but they are, plain and simple. Therefore have no weight in this argument to me.


We agree on something.

This I kind of agree and kind of disagree. I agree, obviously, that marijuana should not be lumped in with all other drugs. Regarding legalizing all drugs, the public will never be ready for that, because that would be a ridiculous thing to do. And a government should not be able to control what someone puts in their body to an extent. If someone wants to take a drug that contributes to an drug culture that does harm others, then yes, they should control it. The main variable being how addictive something is. Marijuana being arguably not addictive at all is what a whole lot of my argument is based on. People don't go out and sell all their belongings to get that next 1/4 of dro.

I thought it through obviously, and still think overall it isn't a very good article. Mainly because of how they group together marijuana and all other drugs. To me, that's like trying to figure out how to manage a cattle farm by looking at info regarding chicken, swine, and cattle farms.

Now proceed to tear my argument apart.

LowRider

I say legalize it all to some degree. I mean what you do in your house or whatever is your business. i mean if someone is going to do a drug there going to do it. Now this being a marijuana site i think it safe to say that prohibition hasn't stopped you right? So what makes u think its going to stop the other hardcore drug users? Cause as statics show us they keep going up or stay about the same Bureau of Justice Statistics Drugs and Crime Facts: Drug law violations and enforcement.

the drug war is nothing but imprisonment for nothing. if your harming someone then yes you should be jailed just like drunk driving. but if your in your house and not harming anyone then it should be your right. Lets look at like this, if someone has alcohol in there possession maybe we should arrest them to keep them from harming others. But you say its legal and there not harming anyone if they do it at home and aren't on the same rd as you. Sounds like your hypocrite to me. What harm will come from someone doing drugs in there own home, beside maybe ODing and just harming themselves? I don't have to worry about my kid picking up a syringe at the playground.

o_t00high_o

Wait....say what?

LowRider

What is the difference beside alcohol being legal is there to other drugs if they do them in there own home? How are they harming me or anyone else for that matter? Prohibition does nothing to stop them like prohibition is doing nothing to stop me from enjoying my weed.

o_t00high_o

The difference is alcohol is legal? Regardless of how unreasonable it is when weed is illegal, alcohol is legal. So why would anyone bust down someones door for drinking a 40?

Buzzby

And there are valid arguments as to why prohibition of any drug is a mistake. What does "progress in getting xxxx legalized" have to do with whether or not it should be legalized? It sounds like you're saying it's bad because it's illegal. The same could be said about marijuana.

"If you don't like the way we're running things in this country, go back where you came from!" I thought we were discussing why a government should or should not instigate prohibition against some substance. Telling me to get out if I don't like it is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

In my opinion, in a free society, the government should be involved in protecting the country from outside dangers and protecting the citizens from harming each other. Making the government the morals police is inimical to the concept of freedom. Taking away a person's ability to make decisions about his own welfare is interfering with his free will.

Why should alcohol and tobacco be legal while heroin and cocaine are not? All four substances are harmful and addictive. Tobacco has no legitimate medical uses. The other three do. You object to two of them because they are harmful and addictive. The other two share those characteristics and cause 50 times as many deaths as all illicit drugs combined. Illegality aside, why should people who use heroin and cocaine be coerced into treatment, but not users of alcohol and tobacco?

Cigarettes kill more than 400,000 Americans every year. That's the population of a medium sized city. I would argue that the narcotic didn't cause the downfall of a community. Prohibition of a narcotic did. People spend all of their money on narcotics and steal to buy them because they're so expensive. Without prohibition, they'd be cheap.

What I'm saying is leave people alone unless they harm someone else. What I'm saying is that treatment should be available to anyone who asks for it. It would cost society a lot less than The Drug War.

And that's their prerogative. As long as they don't hurt anyone else, it's their problem alone. If a person commits a crime while under the influence of some drug, punish them for the crime, not the drug.

Could you supply some details about how one person using a drug harms others? If this harm is at a level that it's criminal, punish them for the crime. If it's not, then it's just like any other asshole who isn't very nice to other people.

Then you're arguing that currently illegal drugs should remain illegal because they are already are illegal, and deadly drugs that are legal should remain legal because they are already legal. So marijuana should remain illegal...

Not on that. At least it doesn't seem like it. Your response was to a statement I made saying that prohibition doesn't, never has, and never will work. But you support prohibition of what you call "dangerous drugs".

That's exactly what the prohibitionists say about marijuana.

Cultures don't harm others. People do. If an individual harms another, he should be appropriately punished. If you start prohibiting things on the basis of what a person might do with it, all guns, knives, baseball bats, cars, sticks, fast food, and rocks should be prohibited. Oh. And alcohol and tobacco.

Alcohol is certainly a drug that contributes to a drug culture whose members often harm others while intoxicated. Would you recommend that alcohol and crack carry the same kind of punishments for possession? Alcohol does far more harm to society.

Most of the harm to others stemming from illegal drugs has a lot more to do with the illegality than the nature of the substance. People steal to buy drugs because prohibition has driven the price up at least 1,000%. Violence has more to do with the black market than the nature of the drugs being sold in it.

Why? Tobacco contains the most addictive substance known to Man. Most people who drink coffee on a regular basis are addicted to it. Alcohol is addictive and 10% of the people who use it are addicts. Why should these drugs be legal while heroin and cocaine are not?

And if they could support their habits on $10 a day, neither would hard drug users. People don't go out and sell all of their belongings to buy a pack of cigarettes. Withdrawal from nicotine is a horrible experience, so they really need those cigs. Since they're legal and a habit costs less than $10 a day to support, they don't have to sell their belongings or steal from others. The only reason a heroin addict can't do that is because heroin is illegal.

Done!

o_t00high_o

I got out of bed because I couldn't sleep and decided to check the threads.
And of course, you had to respond now
BUT, here we go again.

No, I'm saying the reason behind some progress is because there are valid and positive reasons behind there being progress.

I never said go back where you came from. I am saying if you were here originally then you can easily leave to another country where they don't police that.

If you want to talk about free will, then this discussion could stray far from the topic at hand. As much as we call ourselves a free country, we are far from it.


Cocaine and heroin may have some medicinal purposes. I know personally methadone can greatly relieve pain. But wouldn't you say the harm done by those greatly outweigh the positive effects? And I don't really mean they should be coerced into treatment, what I'm saying is they should be forced(i know they are similar in meaning, but I'm trying to make a point) into it. They should be forced if they knowingly break the law and get caught. They should not go to jail, but rather be treated. I'd even be happy with people caught with marijuana be sent to a treatment facility rather than jail. I know I'd rather go to a rehab place for a few months than jail for up to a year. I would even more prefer to just be cited for possessing marijuana than go to rehab. But I do not think people caught with "harder" drugs because they overall have more negative effects, thoughts, do more damage to society and are more addictive. And if we're having a hard enough time legalizing marijuana, then I doubt coke will ever be legalized.

One could argue that if the drugs were cheaper then they'd just buy more and have a greater chance of od'ing. I mean if they are loony enough to sell all their belongings to buy drugs, who's to say they aren't loony enough to just buy a shit ton of them if they are cheap and go crazy with it?

But harder drugs can harm others. I have seen people do crazy things on acid and coke for example. Things they would never even come close to doing if they were stoned. And these crazy things could have easily harmed others, and in some cases have, though not majorly. And, I know, "people also get drunk and do crazy things that are very dangerous". For one, that's one of the things I quarrel with personally. But one thing I am fairly certain of is more insane things happen when geeked up. The only reason you don't hear about it as often is because they are illegal and therefore aren't as widely used. I have seen many drunk people many times and dangerous things with that. But in the way fewer times I've seen someone on coke, ice etc, I've seen just as many crazy things happen (or almost happen if it weren't for sober people around).

Or you could try to get rid of the drug and cancel that situation out entirely. And I know it goes back to the whole prohibiton thing, which I would go back to the rehab argument. I also think that if the "harder" drugs were made legal, there would be more use than under prohibiton.

Getting high and going insane. Selling all their familys belongings to get the next fix. Buying it and contributing to the dangerous underground culture.(Getting rid of prohibiton would solve that problem, but then as I said before there would probably be more widespread use which would lead to more of the previous two problems, here we have a double edged sword, I know). Possibly od'ing, quite easily sometimes I might add, and leaving a family without a father, mother, daughter, son, etc. Going through withdrawal and dying.

I am?

I support removing prohibiton on drugs where the postives outweigh the negatives.

Yes, but there statements are based on ignornace and arrogance, without regard to factual evidence. Mine, I'd like to think, aren't at all.


"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" You want to go down that road?
Might as well start a whole nother thread.

As I said before, this is one of the things I quarrel over in my head. I do think it is inane to have something like that legal and others less harmful ilegal. But I grew up in a world where alcohol was, so I guess I;m predisposed to think of it as OK. Even as much as I try not to.

Again, one could argue that even if the drugs were cheap as hell, they would just buy a lot more and still end stealing or selling their stuff to get even more, I mean, after all they are an addict. Also, noone has any idea how pricey drugs would be under government control because it has never happened. And yes the black market would does influence the violence in it.
But if there was a black market for oven mitts, would that be as violent as the one for crack?

Never heard of a guy dying from nicotine withdrawal. Or be sent to a rehab center for it. Or seen an episode of intervention for it (though I wouldn't doubt if there was one, I mean I seem to remeber seeing one for SHOPPING of all things). And you already know what I think of the alcohol thing.

Yeah, it might be horrible. But nowhere near as horrible as withdrawal from ice. I've experienced quitting cigarettes. And I have seen many people try to quit ciggs besides me, along with having witnessed people trying to quit coke, ice, and even acid.
The two don't even compare.


Again.

Edit: JUNIOR MEMBER....WOOOO...AVATAR AND SIG...score.