The war on marijuana: The transformation of the war on drugs in the 1990s

Harm Reduction Journal

Volumn 3, Issue , 2006, Pages

  King, Ryan S ^a   Mauer, Marc ^a  

^a The Sentencing Project   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANNABIS; ILLICIT DRUG;

ARTICLE; CANNABIS ADDICTION; CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; CRIMINAL LAW; DRUG TRAFFIC; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; LAW ENFORCEMENT; OFFENDER; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SOCIAL CONTROL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33645410751     PISSN: 14777517     EISSN: 14777517     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1477-7517-3-6     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Cooper G: Drug Cases, Sentences Up Sharply Since 1984. Washington Post:A02. August 20, 2001.
2. Walters JP: The Christian Science Monitor Breakfast. The Christian Science Monitor. March 13, 2002.
3. Index I crimes, generally considered the most serious crimes, are comprised of murder and non-negligent man-slaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.
4. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration: Results from the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings (Office of Applied Studies, NHSDA Series H-22, DHHS Publication No. SMA, 03-3836) Rockville, MD; 2003.
5. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration: 2001 National Survey on Drug Use and Health 2002, Chapter 9.2:.
6. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration: Heroin - Changes in How It Is Used, 1992-2002 Rockville, MD; 2004.
7. Pacula RL, Grossman M, Chaloupka FJ, O'Malley PM, Johnston LD, Farrelly MC: Marijuana and Youth. Working Paper No. 7703. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2000:28.
8. Johnston LD, O'Malley PM, Bachman JG, Schulenberg JE: Monitoring the Future: National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975-2003. Volume I: Secondary School Students. (NIH Publication No. 04-5507). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Table 5-4 2004.
9. Caulkins J, MacCoun R: Analyzing Illicit Drug Markets When Dealers Act With Limited Rationality. In The Law and Economics of Irrational Behavior Edited by: Parisi F, Smith VL. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press; 2005:315-338.
10. Johnston, et al.: Table 9-6.
11. Grossman M: Individual Behaviors and Substance Use: The Role of Price. In Working Paper No. 10948 Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2004.
12. Office of National Drug Control Policy: The Price of Illicit Drugs: 1981 through the Second Quarter of 2000. In Table 9 Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy; Office of Programs, Budget, Research and Evaluations; 2001.
13. Ward J: NYPD View: New Procedures Credited with Crime Drop. American City and County 1997, 112:28-31.
14. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration: Overview of Findings from the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. (Office of Applied Studies, HHDSA Series H-21, DHHS Publication No. SMA 03-3774). Rockville, MD. Table 1.31A 2003.
15. Reuter P, Hirschfield P, Davies C: Assessing the Crack-Down on Marijuana in Maryland. [unpublished manuscript]. 2003.
16. Blumstein A. Racial Disproportionality of U.S. Prison Population Revisited. University of Colorado Low Review 1993, 64:743-760.
17. Pastore and Maguire, Table 1.12.
18. The formula to calculate these estimates is adapted from the Miron JA. The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Legalization in Massachusetts. [unpublished manuscript], Miron creates cost estimates by analyzing the overall budget for each category (policing, courts, and corrections) and the proportion of arrests, convictions, and incarceration that is composed of marijuana offenses 2003.
19. Rasmussen DW, Benson BL: The Economic Anatomy of a Drug War. Criminal justice in the Commons Edited by. Lanham, MD. Rowman and Littlefield; 1994.
20. Ibid.:36-7.
21. Hall M: Police, Fire Departments See Shortages Across USA. USA Today. November 29, 2004.
22. Benson BL, Rasmussen DW, Kim I: Deterrence and Public Policy. Trade-Offs in the Allocation of Police Resources. International Review of Low and Economics 1998, 18:77-100.
23. Benson BL, Leburn IS, Rasmussen DW: The Impact of Drug Enforcement on Crime: An Investigation of the Opportunity Cost of Police Resources. Journal of Drug Issues 2001, 31:989-1006.
24. Shepard EM, Blackley R: Drug Enforcement and Crime: Recent Evidence from New York State. Social Science Quarterly, forthcoming. The authors note that an increase in drug possession arrests does not have a significant impact on assaults 200S, 86:.
25. Ibid.
26. Rasmussen, Benson: 135.
27. Mast BD, Benson BL, Rasmussen DW: Entrepreneurial Police and Drug Enforcement Policy. Public Choice 2000, 104:285-308.
28. New York City counties were excluded because we analyze the city data in the following section.
29. The symbolic targets being the "squeegee men" who aggressively pursued washing car windows at city street corners, but homeless people, panhandlers, street merchants, and marijuana smokers were also targeted.
30. Spitzer E, cited in Harcourt BE: Policing Disorder: Can We Reduce Serious Crime by Punishing Petty Offenses. Boston Review 2002.
31. Office of the Attomey General, New York State: The New York City Police Department's "Stop and Frisk" Practices: A Report to the People of the State of New York from the Office of the Attomey General 1999:57.
32. Pooley E: One Good Apple. In Time, as quoted in Karmen, A: New York Murder Mystery. The True Story Behind the Crime Crash of the 1990s New York. New York University Press; 2000:55-56. 1996, Jan 15:
33. Office of the Attorney General, New York State: 122. [Footnote 30]
34. Ibid.:93-94.
35. Ruth H, Reitz KR: The Challenge of Crime. Rethinking Our Response Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2003.
36. Associated Press: District Attorneys in Texas Say They Can't Prosecute Drug Cases Assigned by Federal Agents; They Get the Cases of Those Caught at Border with Smaller Amounts; Number of Arrests Has Soared. St Louis Post-Dis-patch: A10. May 7, 2000.
37. Ibid.
38. City of Syracuse, Department of Audit: Report on the Syracuse Police Department Activity for the Year Ended june 30, 2002 Edited by: Minchin G. Lewis, City Auditor. December 29, 2003.
39. Ibid.
40. Ferkenhoff E: A Change in Marijuana Prosecution Eyed: Chcago Considers Bid to Issue Fines in Certain Cases. Boston Globe. September 26, 2004.
41. Armentano P: A state-by-state list of initiatives that were on local and state ballots for the 2004 election is available online from Alternet. Marijuana Reform to Tap Grassroots. [http://www.alternet.org/ drugreporter/19441/]. Accessed September 8, 2004.
42. Brown B: Ontario Backs Off Pot Arrests. Buffalo News:Al. June 8,2003.
43. Ibid.
44. Manasek J: Britain's Cannabis 'Safe Haven': Police in London's Gritty Brixton Neighbourhood are Losing the War on Drugs, so the Police Chief is Experimenting with not Enforcing Marijuana Laws. Ottawa Citizen, News AI. August 5, 2001.
45. Hoge W: Britain to Stop Arresting Most Private Users of Marijuana. The New York Times Section A:3. July 11, 2002.
46. Ibid.
47. Peter D, Hart Research Associates, Inc: Drugs and Crime Across America: Police Chiefs Speak Out. A National Survey Among Chieft of Police Washington, DO Drug Strategies and Police Foundation; 2004.
48. Ibid.
49. Ibid.
50. Rasmussen, Benson: 146.
51. Wilson M: For an example of how the reduction in crime has altered policing patterns, see: Policing a City Where Streets Are Less Mean. The New York Times. August 8, 2004.
52. Reuter, et al.:.
53. Ibid.:13-15.
54. Ibid.:2.
55. Op. cit., Office of the Attorney General, New York State.
56. Harcourt B: Reflecting on the Subject: A Critique of the Social Influence Conception of Deterrence, the Broken Windows Theory, and Order-Maintenance Policing New York Style. Michigan Law Review 1998, 97:291-389.
57. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics: NATIONAL JUDICIAL REPORTING PROGRAM, 1990: [UNITED STATES] [Computer File]. Compiled by U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2nd ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer and distributor], 2000; Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. NATIONAL JUDICIAL REPORTING PROGRAM, 2000: [UNITED STATES] [Computer File]. Compiled by U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2nd ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer and distributor]. 2003.
58. The most recent year available is 2000.
59. State-level data extracted from U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. NATIONAL JUDICIAL REPORTING PROGRAM: [UNITED STATES] [Computer File]. Compiled by U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2nd ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer and distributor], 2003. Federal data from United States Sentencing Commission. 2000 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics, Table 33 2000.
60. The Alabama Sentencing Commission: 2004 Annual Report Recommendations for Reform of Alabama's Criminal Justice System 2004.
61. Durose mr, Langan PA: Felony Sentences in State Courts, 2000 Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCI 198821; 2003.
62. The figures calculated for this study use the same indicator variables as the Bureau of Justice Statistics study in an effort to permit comparison. The mean and median refer to the maximum sentence length in which the offense under discussion is the most serious.
63. This pattern of longer average sentences for possession cases is mirrored in the federal system for all drugs, not simply marijuana.
64. See Note 20 for discussion of methodology.
65. Data from the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, Computerized Criminal History System.
66. Rohde D: Crackdown on Minor Offenses Swamps New York City Courts. The New York Times; Section A:1. February 2, 1999.
67. Harrison PM, Beck AJ: This estimate is based on current population counts from Prisoners in 2003. Washington, DC Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ 205335; 2004. The proportion of marijuana offenders was calculated using data from: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the U.S. Dept. of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons. SURVEY OF INMATES IN STATE AND FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, 1997. [Computer File]. Compiled by U.S. Dept of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. ICPSR ed Ann Arbor, MI. Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer and distributor] 2000.
68. This estimate calculated using an average annual per inmate cost of $22, 000..
69. Sevigny EL, Caulkins JP: This cohort is based on criteria used in Kingpins or Mules: An Analysis of Drug Offenders Incarcerated in Federal and State Prisons. Criminology & Public Policy. Low-level drug offenders are defined as having "no current or prior violence in their records, no involvement in sophisticated criminal activity and no prior commitment." An individual engaged in sophisticated criminal activity is "a principal figure or prime motivator in the criminal organization or activity, including an individual who acted alone or directed the illicit activities of a criminal organization." See Dept. of Justice, An Analysis of Non-Violent Drug Offenders with Minimal Criminal Histories, 1994. (p. 2, 6) 2004, 3:401-434.
70. Tayior RB:'Broken Windows'or Incivilities Thesis. In Encyclopedia of Low Enforcement Volume I. Edited by: LE Sullivan (Editor-in-Chief). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2005:34. (Volume I: Encyclopedia of State and Local Law Enforcement, M. Rosen, editor).
71. Enforcement includes domestic law enforcement, as discussed on pages 9-10, as well as international interdiction and supply reduction.