THE WAR ON
MARIJUANA
IN BLACK
AND WHITE
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WASTED ON RACIALLY BIASED ARRESTS

June 2013

 

1

 The War on Marijuana in Black and White
© 2013 ACLU Foundation

American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
www.aclu.org

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

II. FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Finding #1: Marijuana Possession Arrests Increased Between 2001-2010 . . . . . . . 14

Finding #2: Racial Disparities in Marijuana Possession Arrests Exist 

Throughout the Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Finding #3: Racial Disparities in Marijuana Possession Arrests Increased 

Between 2001–2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 

Finding #4: Blacks and Whites Use Marijuana at Similar Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Finding #5: States Are Wasting Money on Marijuana Possession Arrests . . . . . . . 22

PROFILE: DEMARCUS SANDERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

PROFILE: ALFREDO CARRASQUILLO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

III. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

A. Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

i. Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

ii. The Latino Data Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

iii. Counting and Classifying Marijuana Possession Arrests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

B. Coverage Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

IV. MARIJUANA ARRESTS HAVE RISEN SIGNIFICANTLY BETWEEN 2001 AND 2010, 

AND THE RACIAL DISPARITIES OF THOSE ARRESTS HAVE INCREASED . . . . . . . . . 36

A. The Rise in Marijuana Arrests Between 2001 and 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

i. National Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36


  1


 ii. State Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

iii. County Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

B. Significant Racial Disparities Exist in Marijuana Possession Arrests Across 

the Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

i. National Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

ii. State Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

iii. County Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

C. Blacks and Whites Use Marijuana at Similar Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

V. FISCAL COST ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

A. Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

i. High Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

ii. Low Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

iii. Middle Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

B. Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

PROFILE: NICK SMITH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

PROFILE: MARISA GARCÍA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

VI. THE RISE IN MARIJUANA POSSESSION ARRESTS: WHAT CAUSED THE EXPLOSION? 85

A. The War on Drugs and the Shift from Rehabilitation to Punishment . . . . . . . . . 85

B. Broken Windows’ Broken Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

C. The Incentives Behind Making Marijuana Arrests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

i. COMPSTAT Performance Measures: Targeting Communities, 

Rewarding Arrests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

ii. The Inclusion of Marijuana Possession Arrests as a Performance Measure 

for Federal Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

PROFILE: SAM COURT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

PROFILE: RODERICK BATTLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108


2

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

A. Marijuana Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

i. Legalize Marijuana Use and Possession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

ii. Depenalize Marijuana Use and Possession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

iii. Decriminalize Marijuana Use and Possession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

B. Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

i. Police Departments Should Make Marijuana Possession Arrests a Lowest

Enforcement Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

ii. Police Departments Should End Racial Profiling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

iii. Police Procedures Must Be Fair and Constitutional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

iv. Police Should Adopt, Whether Voluntarily or as Required by State Law, 

Model Consent Search Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

v. Police Departments and the Federal Government Should Eliminate Policies 

That Incentivize Arrests for Minor Offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

a. Police Departments Should Cease Using Raw Numbers of Stops, 

Citations, Summons, and Arrests as a Metric to Measure Their 

Productivity and Effectiveness in Serving Communities and 

Addressing Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

b. The Federal Government Should Not Include Marijuana Possession 

Arrests in its Performance Measures for Byrne Justice Assistance 

Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

vi. Police Should Increase Data Collection and Transparency 

Regarding Stop, Frisk, Search, and Arrest Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

vii. External Oversight Agencies Should Conduct Regular Audits and Reviews 

of Police Departments and Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

VIII. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

APPENDIX A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133


  3


 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is the first to examine marijuana possession arrest rates by race for all 50
states (and the District of Columbia) and their respective counties from 2001 to 2010.
The report relies on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting
Program and the United States Census’ annual county population estimates to document
arrest rates by race per 100,000 for marijuana possession.
The report finds that between 2001 and 2010,
there were over 8 million marijuana arrests
in the United States, 88% of which were for
possession. Marijuana arrests have increased
between 2001 and 2010 and now account
for over half (52%) of all drug arrests in the
United States, and marijuana possession
arrests account for nearly half (46%) of
all drug arrests. In 2010, there was one
marijuana arrest every 37 seconds, and
states spent combined over $3.6 billion
enforcing marijuana possession laws.

Marijuana arrests
have increased
between 2001
and 2010 and now
account for over half
(52%) of all drug
arrests in the United
States

The report also finds that, on average, a Black person is 3.73 times more likely to be
arrested for marijuana possession than a white person, even though Blacks and whites
use marijuana at similar rates. Such racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests
exist in all regions of the country, in counties large and small, urban and rural, wealthy
and poor, and with large and small Black populations. Indeed, in over 96% of counties
with more than 30,000 people in which at least 2% of the residents are Black, Blacks are
arrested at higher rates than whites for marijuana possession.
The report concludes that the War on Marijuana, like the larger War on Drugs of which
it is a part, is a failure. It has needlessly ensnared hundreds of thousands of people in
the criminal justice system, had a staggeringly disproportionate impact on AfricanAmericans, and comes at a tremendous human and financial cost. The price paid by
those arrested and convicted of marijuana possession can be significant and linger for
years, if not a lifetime. Arrests and convictions for possessing marijuana can negatively
impact public housing and student financial aid eligibility, employment opportunities,
child custody determinations, and immigration status. Further, the War on Marijuana

4

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 has been a fiscal fiasco. The taxpayers’ dollars that law enforcement agencies waste
enforcing marijuana possession laws could be better spent on addressing and solving
serious crimes and working collaboratively with communities to build trust and increase
public health and safety. Despite the fact that aggressive enforcement of marijuana laws
has been an increasing priority of police departments across the country, and that states
have spent billions of dollars on such enforcement, it has failed to diminish marijuana’s
use or availability.
To repair this country’s wrecked War on Marijuana, the ACLU recommends that
marijuana be legalized for persons 21 or older through a system of taxation, licensing,
and regulation. Legalization is the smartest and surest way to end targeted enforcement
of marijuana laws in communities of color, and, moreover, would eliminate the costs
of such enforcement while generating revenue for cash-strapped states. States could
then reinvest the money saved and generated into public schools and public health
programs, including substance abuse treatment. If legalization is not possible, the ACLU
recommends depenalizing marijuana use and possession for persons 21 or older by
removing all attendant civil and criminal penalties, or, if depenalization is unobtainable,
decriminalizing marijuana use and possession for adults and youth by classifying such
activities as civil, not criminal, offenses.
The ACLU also recommends that until legalization or depenalization is achieved, law
enforcement agencies and district attorney offices should deprioritize enforcement
of marijuana possession laws. In addition, police should end racial profiling and
unconstitutional stop, frisk, and search practices, and no longer measure success
and productivity by the number of arrests they make. Further, states and the federal
government should eliminate the financial incentives and rewards that enable and
encourage law enforcement to make large numbers of arrests, including for low-level
offenses such as marijuana possession.
In sum, it is time to end marijuana possession arrests.

Executive Summary

  5


 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The report has been a project of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The primary
authors are Ezekiel Edwards, director, Criminal Law Reform Project; Will Bunting, fiscal
policy analyst; and Lynda Garcia, Soros Justice Fellow.
The authors thank Vanita Gupta, deputy legal director, ACLU, and director, Center for
Justice, for her strategic guidance, edits, and assistance in overseeing production of the
report; Rebecca McCray, paralegal, ACLU, and Kate Larkin, administrative assistant,
ACLU, for their editorial assistance; and Nicole Kief, advocacy and policy strategist, ACLU,
for her outreach and assistance to ACLU affiliates.
The authors also thank Allen Hopper at the ACLU of Northern California, Alison Holcomb
at the ACLU of Washington, and Udi Ofer of the ACLU of New Jersey for their invaluable
feedback; Julie Ebenstein and Benjamin Stevenson at the ACLU of Florida, and Michael
Barnfield, legal consultant to the ACLU of Florida, for their assistance in obtaining arrest
data from the state of Florida; Sarah LaPlante at the New York Civil Liberties Union for
her assistance in obtaining data from the Criminal Court of the City of New York; and
Rosalyn Overstreet-Gonzalez at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia
for her assistance in obtaining data from the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department.
The authors would like to extend their deep gratitude and a special thanks to Professors
Jon Gettman at Shenandoah University and Harry Levine at Queens College, City
University of New York. Professor Gettman, who has researched and reported extensively
on data related to marijuana arrests for over 12 years, was extremely generous in
providing the ACLU with his data set for marijuana possession arrests from 2001 to
2010. This data set served as the foundation for this report. Professor Levine has long
been one of the leading voices on marijuana arrests and their racial disparities. Indeed,
previous reports on marijuana arrests in various cities and states by Professor Levine, his
colleague Loren Siegel, and Professor Gettman provided indispensable models for this
report.

The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of June 2013. Given that URLs and web sites are in constant flux, the ACLU
cannot vouch for their current validity.

6

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 I . INTRODUCTION
Over the past 40 years, the United States has fought a losing domestic drug war that has
cost one trillion dollars, resulted in over 40 million arrests, consumed law enforcement
resources, been a key contributor to jaw-dropping rates of incarceration, damaged
countless lives, and had a disproportionately devastating impact on communities of
color. The ferocity with which the United States has waged this war, which has included
dramatic increases in the length of prison sentences, and has resulted in a 53% increase
in drug arrests, a 188% increase in the number of people arrested for marijuana
offenses, and a 52% increase in the number of people in state prisons for drug offenses,
between 1990 and 2010.1 Indeed, the United
States now has an unprecedented and
unparalleled incarceration rate: while it
accounts for 5% of the world’s population, it
has 25% of the world’s prison population.2
Despite costing billions of dollars,3 the War
on Drugs has polluted the nation’s social
and public health while failing to have any
marked effect on the use or availability of
drugs.4 Indeed, the United States is the

Despite costing
billions, the War on
Drugs has polluted
the nation’s social
and public health and
failed to curb the use
or availability of drugs.

1
See ALLEN J. BECK & PAIGE M. HARRISON, U.S, DEP’T OF JUST., BUREAU OF JUST. STATISTICS, PRISONERS IN 2000 1 & 12 (Aug. 2001), available
at http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p00.pdf (reporting the state prison population at 708,370 in 1990 and that 22% of that population, or
155,843 people, were incarcerated for drug offenses); PAUL GUERINO, PAIGE M. HARRISON & WILLIAM J. SABOL, U.S, DEP’T OF JUST., BUREAU OF JUST.
STATISTICS, PRISONERS IN 2010 2 (Dec. 2011), available at http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p10.pdf (reporting the state prison population at
237,000 in 2010).
2
See JENIFER WARREN, ONE IN 100: BEHIND BARS IN AMERICA 2008, PEW CTR. ON THE STATES 35, tbl. A-7 (2008), available at http://www.
pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2008/one%20in%20100.pdf; see also Adam Liptak, U.S. Prison Population Dwarfs that of
Other Nations, N.Y. TIMES, April 23, 2008, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/americas/23iht-23prison.12253738.
html?pagewanted=all&_r=3&.
3
The incarceration of drug users comes at a heavy price—the average annual operating cost per state inmate in 2010 was $28,323,
or $77.60 per day. See TRACEY KYCKELHAHN, U.S. DEP’T OF JUST., BUREAU OF JUST. STATISTICS, STATE CORRECTIONS EXPENDITURES, FY 1982-2010 4 (2012),
available at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/scefy8210.pdf; see also CHRISTIAN HENRICHSON & RUTH DELANEY, VERA INST. OF JUST., THE
PRICE OF PRISONS: WHAT INCARCERATION COSTS TAXPAYERS 10 (2012), available at http://www.vera.org/pubs/price-prisons-what-incarceration­
costs-taxpayers (follow “The Price of Prisons report” hyperlink) (reporting that it costs an average of $31,286 per year to incarcerate
an inmate based on additional cost drivers such as underfunded contributions to retiree health care for corrections employees, states’
contributions to retiree health care on behalf of their corrections departments, employee benefits, such as health insurance, and
hospital and other health care for the prison population).
4
A World Health Organization survey of 17 countries in 2008, including the Netherlands and other countries with less stringent
drug laws, found that the United States has the highest level of illegal drug use in the world. See Louisa Degenhardt et al., Toward a
Global View of Alcohol, Tobacco, Cannabis, and Cocaine Use: Findings from the WHO World Mental Health Surveys, 5 PLOS MEDICINE 1053,
1061 & 1065 (2008) [hereinafter Toward a Global View], available at http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.
pmed.0050141 (follow “download” hyperlink). Americans report the highest level of cocaine and marijuana use — Americans were
4 times more likely to have tried cocaine in their lifetime than the next closest country, the Netherlands, while 42.2% of Americans
admitted to having used marijuana.

Introduction

  7


 world’s largest consumer of illegal drugs.5 On the 40th anniversary of the War on Drugs,
former President Jimmy Carter declared it a total failure, noting that global drug use for
all drugs had increased in the years since the drug war started.6
The first half of the War on Drugs focused largely on relentless enforcement of heroin and
crack cocaine laws in poor communities of color.7 But with the ebb of the crack epidemic
in the late 1980s, law enforcement agencies began shifting to an easy target: marijuana.
As a result, over the past 20 years police departments across the country have directed
greater resources toward the enforcement of marijuana laws. Indeed, even as overall
drug arrests started to decline around 2006, marijuana arrests continued to rise, and now
make up over half of all drug arrests in the United States. In 2010, there were more than
20,000 people incarcerated on the sole charge of marijuana possession.8
Stated simply, marijuana has become the drug of choice for state and local police
departments nationwide. Between 2001 and 2010, there were 8,244,943 marijuana
arrests, of which 7,295,880, or 88%, were for marijuana possession. In 2010 alone, there
were 889,133 marijuana arrests — 300,000 more than arrests for all violent crimes

5
U.S. SENATE CAUCUS ON INT’L NARCOTICS CONTROL, REDUCING THE U.S. DEMAND FOR ILLEGAL DRUGS 11 (2012), available at http://www.feinstein.
senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=81b53476-64a3-4088-9bae-254a84b95ddb (citing CTR. FOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH STATISTICS &
QUALITY, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (SAMHSA), U.S. DEP’T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, RESULTS FROM THE 2010
NATIONAL SURVEY ON DRUG USE AND HEALTH (NSDUH): SUMMARY OF NATIONAL FINDINGS (Sept. 2011)) (“According to the National Survey on Drug Use
and Health, in 2010, about 22.6 million Americans aged 12 and older were current (in the past month) illegal drug users, representing
8.9 percent of the population. This represents the largest proportion in the past decade of people aged 12 and older identified as current
illegal drug users.”).
6
Jimmy Carter, Op-Ed., Call Off the Global Drug War, N.Y. TIMES, June 16, 2011, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/
opinion/17carter.html?_r=3&. Further evidence that the War on Drugs has been a global failure is a 2012 report by the Global
Commission on Drug Policy that found that the “global war on drugs is driving the HIV/AIDS pandemic among people who use drugs
and their sexual partners.” GLOBAL COMM’N ON DRUG POL’Y, THE WAR ON DRUGS AND HIV/AIDS: HOW THE CRIMINALIZATION OF DRUG USE FUELS THE
GLOBAL PANDEMIC 2 (2012), available at http://globalcommissionondrugs.org/wp-content/themes/gcdp_v1/pdf/GCDP_HIV-AIDS_2012_
REFERENCE.pdf. The Commission points to research that shows that repressive drug law enforcement practices result in driving drug
users away “from public health services and into hidden environments where HIV risk becomes markedly elevated.” Id. Furthermore,
the mass incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders increases HIV risk—in the United States as many as 25% of Americans infected with
HIV may pass through correctional facilities annually, and higher rates of incarceration for African Americans may be one reason for
markedly higher HIV rates among African Americans. Id.
7
Blacks have borne the disproportionate brunt of the broader War on Drugs. Although Blacks comprise only 13% of the general
population, 33% of all drug arrests are of Blacks, and they are more likely to be incarcerated upon conviction for drug offenses.
JAMIE FELLNER ET AL., HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, DECADES OF DISPARITY: DRUG ARRESTS AND RACE IN THE UNITED STATES 4 & 16 (2009), available at http://
www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0309web_1.pdf. Blacks’ likelihood of being arrested for drugs at ages 17, 22, and 27 are
approximately 13%, 83%, and 235% greater than that of whites. See OJMARRH MITCHELL & MICHAEL S. CAUDY, EXAMINING RACIAL DISPARITIES IN
DRUG ARRESTS, JUST. Q., 1 (2013) [hereinafter MITCHELL & CAUDY]. While some have suggested that such disparities can be explained by
differences in drug use, drug offending, or neighborhood residence, a recent study examining these severe racial disparities in drug
arrests found that the disparities cannot be accounted for by differences in such factors. Id. Specifically, the study found that 87% of
Black’s higher probability of drug arrests is in fact not attributable to differences in drug use, nondrug offending, or neighborhood
context, but instead due to racial bias in law enforcement. Id. at 20. These findings are consistent with previous research finding that
racial disparities in drug arrests are only partially explained by racial differences in drug offending. See KATHERINE BECKETT, ACLU DRUG
LAW REFORM PROJECT & THE DEFENDER ASS’N, RACE AND DRUG LAW ENFORCEMENT IN SEATTLE 3-4 (2008), available at http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/
race20and20drug20law20enforcement20in20seattle_20081.pdf (finding that while the majority of those who use and deliver serious
drugs in Seattle are white, the majority of those purposefully arrested for delivering serious drugs in Seattle are Black, and that the
focus on crack cocaine is the fundamental cause of such racial disparity and is not a function of race-neutral policy).
8
See NAT’L CTR. ON ADDICTION & SUBSTANCE ABUSE, BEHIND BARS II: SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND AMERICA’S PRISON POPULATION 2, 14 (2010) [hereinafter
BEHIND BARS II], available at http://www.casacolumbia.org/articlefiles/575-report2010behindbars2.pdf (reporting that there were 20,291
people incarcerated for marijuana possession as their only offense).

8

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 combined — or one every 37 seconds. There were 140,000 more marijuana arrests in
2010 than in 2001, and 784,021 of them, or 88%, were for possession.9
The War on Marijuana has largely been
a war on people of color. Despite the fact
that marijuana is used at comparable
rates by whites and Blacks, state and
local governments have aggressively
enforced marijuana laws selectively
against Black people and communities.10
In 2010, the Black arrest rate for
marijuana possession was 716 per
100,000, while the white arrest rate was
192 per 100,000. Stated another way,
a Black person was 3.73 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession
than a white person — a disparity that increased 32.7% between 2001 and 2010. It is
not surprising that the War on Marijuana, waged with far less fanfare than the earlier
phases of the drug war, has gone largely, if not entirely, unnoticed by middle- and
upper-class white communities.

In states with the worst
disparities, Blacks were
on average over six
times more likely to be
arrested for marijuana
possession than whites.

In the states with the worst disparities, Blacks were on average over six times more
likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites. In the worst offending
counties across the country, Blacks were over 10, 15, even 30 times more likely to be
arrested than white residents in the same county. These glaring racial disparities in
marijuana arrests are not a northern or southern phenomenon, nor a rural or urban
phenomenon, but rather a national one. The racial disparities are as staggering in
the Midwest as in the Northeast, in large counties as in small, on city streets as on
country roads, in counties with high median family incomes as in counties with low
median family incomes. They exist regardless of whether Blacks make up 50% or 5%
of a county’s overall population. The racial disparities in marijuana arrest rates are
ubiquitous; the differences can be found only in their degrees of severity.
Thus, while the criminal justice system casts a wide net over marijuana use and
possession by Blacks, it has turned a comparatively blind eye to the same conduct
9
While the broader War on Drugs also often fails to differentiate meaningfully between corner-dealer and kingpin, low-level
possessor and major pusher, addicts who sell simply to support their habits and profit-reaping entrepreneurs, its architects at least
claimed that it was designed originally to disable larger-scale drug distributors.
10
See infra Figures 21–23. Between 2001 and 2010, of individuals surveyed by SAMHSA, each year slightly more Blacks than whites
reported using marijuana over the past year; among 18- to 25-year-olds, marijuana use was higher among whites than Blacks over
the same time period. SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH SERV. ADMIN., MARIJUANA USE IN LIFETIME, PAST YEAR, AND PAST MONTH AMONG PERSONS
AGED 18 TO 25, BY DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS: PERCENTAGES, 2009 AND 2010 tbls. 1.26A & 1.26B, available at http://www.samhsa.gov/data/
nsduh/2k10NSDUH/tabs/Sect1peTabs1to46.htm.

Introduction

  9


 occurring at the same rates in many white
communities. Just as with the larger drug
war, the War on Marijuana has, quite
simply, served as a vehicle for police to
target communities of color.

The War on Marijuana
has, quite simply,
served as a vehicle
for police to target
communities of color.

To the extent that the goal of these
hundreds of thousands of arrests has been
to curb the availability or consumption
of marijuana, they have failed.11 In 2002,
there were 14.5 million people aged 12 or older — 6.2% of the total population — who
had used marijuana in the previous month; by 2011, that number had increased to
18.1 million — 7.0% of the total population.12 According to a World Health Organization
survey of 17 countries, 42.2% of Americans have tried marijuana in their lifetime.13 The
2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health reported similar numbers — 39.26% of
Americans surveyed reported having used marijuana in their lifetimes — and over 17.4
million Americans had used marijuana in the past month.14 Between 2009 and 2010,
30.4% of 18- to 25-year-olds reported having used marijuana at least once in the past
month.15

All wars are expensive, and this war has been no different. States spent over $3.61
billion combined enforcing marijuana possession laws in 2010. New York and California
combined spent over $1 billion in total justice system expenditures just on enforcement
of marijuana possession arrests. Had marijuana been regulated like alcohol, and had its
11
Indeed, one report noted that the increase in marijuana arrests during the 1990s had no measurable impact on price, access, or
availability of marijuana. See KATHERINE BECKETT & STEVE HERBERT, ACLU OF WASH., THE CONSEQUENCES AND COSTS OF MARIJUANA PROHIBITION 18-20
(2008) [hereinafter BECKETT & HERBERT], available at http://www.aclu-wa.org/library_files/BeckettandHerbert.pdf. See also NAT’L DRUG
INTELLIGENCE CTR., NAT’L DRUG THREAT ASSESSMENT 2011 5, 29 (2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs44/44849/44849p.
pdf (noting that the demand for marijuana is rising and that availability is high); id. at iv (“Despite recent increases in marijuana arrests,
the price of marijuana has dropped; its average potency has increased; it has become more readily available; and marijuana use rates
have often increased during the decade of increasing arrests. It thus appears that the goals of marijuana prohibition have not been
achieved.”); see generally Craig Reinarman, Peter D.A. Cohen, & L. Kaal, The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam
and in San Francisco, 94 AM. J. OF PUB. HEALTH 836 (2004), available at http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.94.5.836
(comparing the availability and use of marijuana between Amsterdam, where the government adopted de facto decriminalization in
1976, and San Francisco, and finding that the criminalization of marijuana did not reduce use, nor did decriminalization of marijuana
increase use). Marijuana use throughout the 1980s, when marijuana arrests were level, actually fell. In 1979, rates of usage began to
decline sharply, falling 61%, while arrest rates declined by only 24% for the time period. From 1991 to 2003, marijuana arrest rates
increased disproportionately by 127% as compared to the 22% increase in use. JASON ZIEDENBERG & JASON COLBURN, JUST. POL’Y INST., EFFICACY
& IMPACT: THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE TO MARIJUANA POLICY IN THE US 9 (2005) [hereinafter ZIEDENBERG & COLBURN], available at http://www.
justicepolicy.org/research/2017.
12
See Drug Facts: Nationwide Trends, NAT’L INST. ON DRUG ABUSE, (Dec. 2012), http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/
nationwide-trends (last visited Feb. 25, 2013).
13
See Toward a Global View, supra note 4.
14
U.S. DEP’T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERV., SUBSTANCE ABUSE & MENTAL HEALTH SERV. ADMIN., RESULTS FROM THE 2010 NATIONAL SURVEY ON DRUG USE AND
HEALTH: SUMMARY OF NATIONAL FINDINGS (2011), available at http://www.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2k10NSDUH/2k10Results.htm.
15
U.S. DEP’T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERV., SUBSTANCE ABUSE & MENTAL HEALTH SERV. ADMIN., STATE ESTIMATES OF SUBSTANCE USE AND MENTAL
DISORDERS FROM THE 2009-2010 NATIONAL SURVEYS ON DRUG USE AND HEALTH 2.2 (last updated 2012), available at http://www.samhsa.gov/data/
NSDUH/2k10State/NSDUHsae2010/NSDUHsaeCh2-2010.htm#2.2.

10

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 use been treated as a public health issue akin to alcohol instead of as a criminal justice
issue, this is money that cities, counties, and police departments could have invested
in an array of other law enforcement
priorities and community initiatives.

States spent over
$3.6 billion combined
enforcing marijuana
possession laws in 2010.

Marijuana arrests, prosecutions, and
convictions have wrought havoc on both
individuals and communities, not only
causing direct harm but also resulting
in dire collateral consequences.
These include affecting eligibility for
public housing and student financial aid, employment opportunities, child custody
determinations, and immigration status. Marijuana convictions can also subject people
to more severe charges and sentences if they are ever arrested for or convicted of
another crime. In addition, the targeted enforcement of marijuana laws against people
of color, and the unsettling, if not humiliating, experience such enforcement entails,
creates community mistrust of the police, reduces police-community cooperation, and
damages public safety.

Concentrated enforcement of marijuana laws based on a person’s race or community
has not only been a central component of this country’s broader assault on drugs and
drug users, it has also resulted from shifts in policing strategies, and the incentives
driving such strategies. Over the past 20 years, various policing models rooted in the
“broken windows” theory, such as order-maintenance and zero-tolerance policing, have
resulted in law enforcement pouring resources into targeted communities to enforce
aggressively a wide array of low-level offenses, infractions, and ordinances through
tenacious stop, frisk, and search practices. Indeed, it seems hard to avoid the conclusion
that police tactics of effectuating a high volume of arrests for minor offenses has
been a major contributor to the 51% rise in marijuana arrests between 1995 and 2010.
Adding further stimuli to such policing strategies are COMPSTAT — a data-driven police
management and performance assessment tool — and the Byrne Justice Assistance
Grant Program, a federal funding mechanism used by state and local police to enforce
drug laws. These programs appear to create incentives for police departments to
generate high numbers of drug arrests, including high numbers of marijuana arrests, to
meet or exceed internal and external performance measures.
So we stand at a strange crossroads in America with regards to marijuana policy. On
the one hand, as of November 2012, two states — Colorado and Washington — have
legalized marijuana; 19 jurisdictions (18 states and the District of Columbia) allow

Introduction

  11


 marijuana for medical purposes; a majority of Americans favor both full legalization16
as well as legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes;17 whites and Blacks use
marijuana at comparable rates,18 and many residents of middle- and upper-class white
communities use marijuana without legal consequence or even fear of entanglement in
the criminal justice system. On the other hand, in 2010 there were over three-quarters
of a million arrests for marijuana possession — accounting for almost half of the almost
1.7 million drug arrests nationwide — for which many people were jailed and convicted.
Worse yet, Blacks were arrested for marijuana possession at almost four times the rate
as whites, with disparities even more severe in several states and counties, and the
country spent billions of dollars enforcing marijuana laws.
But the right road ahead for this country is clearly marked: marijuana possession
arrests must end. In place of marijuana criminalization, and taking a cue from the failure
of alcohol prohibition, states should legalize marijuana, by licensing and regulating
marijuana production, distribution, and possession for persons 21 or older. Legalization
would, first and foremost, eliminate the unfair race- and community-targeted
enforcement of marijuana criminal laws; help reduce overincarceration in our jails and
prisons; curtail infringement upon constitutional rights, most notably as guaranteed by
the Fourth Amendment’s proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures; and allow
law enforcement to focus on serious crime.19
Furthermore, at a time when states are facing budget shortfalls, legalizing marijuana
makes fiscal sense. The licensing and taxation of marijuana will save states millions
of dollars currently spent on enforcement of marijuana criminal laws. It will, in turn,
raise millions more in revenue to reinvest in public schools and substance abuse

16
Majority Now Supports Legalizing Marijuana, Pew Research CTR for the People & the Press (Apr. 4, 2013), http://www.people-press.
org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports-legalizing-marijuana/. A 2012 Rasmussen poll of likely voters revealed that 56% favored
legalizing and regulating marijuana in a similar manner to alcohol and tobacco regulation, while 36% opposed. 56% Favor Legalizing,
Regulating Marijuana, RASMUSSEN REPORTS (May 17, 2012), http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/
may_2012/56_favor_legalizing_regulating_marijuana. Other polls have produced similar results. Record High of 50% of Americans Favor
Legalizing Marijuana Use, GALLUP POLITICS (Oct. 27, 2011), http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/record-high-americans-favor-legalizing­
marijuana.aspx.
17
A Gallup poll in 2010 found that 70% of Americans favored making marijuana legally available for doctors to prescribe to reduce
pain and suffering. Elizabeth Mendes, New High of 46% of Americans Support Legalizing Marijuana, GALLUP POLITICS (Oct. 28, 2010), http://
www.gallup.com/poll/144086/New-High-Americans-Support-Legalizing-Marijuana.aspx.
18
See infra Figures 21–23.
19
A retired deputy chief of the Los Angeles Police Department criticized the drug war’s diversion of police resources, citing the
reassignment of Los Angeles police officers to oversee the constant transfer of prisoners to county correctional facilities as well as
the fact that police laboratories were inundated with drug samples to test, which slowed the testing of rape kits and evidence related
to other serious crimes. See Stephen Downing, Op-Ed, Drug War: What Prohibition Costs Us [Blowback], L.A. TIMES, Oct. 6, 2011, available
at http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/10/drug-war-blowback.html. Drug law enforcement “is believed to have redirected
law enforcement resources that have resulted in more drunk driving, and decreased investigation and enforcement of violent crime
laws.” Bryan Stevenson, Drug Policy, Criminal Justice and Mass Incarceration 4 (Global Comm’n on Drug Policies, Working Paper, 2011),
available at http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/wp-content/themes/gcdp_v1/pdf/Global_Com_Bryan_Stevenson.pdf. In Illinois,
for example, a 47% increase in drug arrests corresponded with a 22.5% decrease in drunk driving arrests. MARK MAUER & RYAN S. KING,
THE SENTENCING PROJECT, A 25-YEAR QUAGMIRE: THE WAR ON DRUGS AND ITS IMPACT ON AMERICAN SOCIETY 5 (2007) [hereinafter MAUER & KING], available
at http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/dp_25yearquagmire.pdf.

12

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 prevention, as well as general funds and local budgets, research, and public health, to
help build stronger, safer communities.20 Indeed, Washington State’s Office of Financial
Management projects that Initiative 502, which legalized the possession of marijuana for
people 21 or older under tight regulations, will generate more than half a billion dollars
in new revenue each year through a 25% marijuana excise tax, retail sales, and business
and occupation taxes.21 The state will direct 40% of the new revenues toward the state
general fund and local budgets and 60% toward education, health care, substance abuse
prevention, and research.22 At the national level, a CATO Institute study estimated that
federal drug expenditures on marijuana prohibition in 2008 were $3.4 billion, and that
legalization would generate $8.7 billion in annual revenue.23
If legalizing marijuana through taxation, licensing, and regulation is unobtainable,
states should significantly reduce marijuana arrests by removing all criminal and civil
penalties for authorized marijuana use and possession for persons 21 or older. Under
depenalization, there would be no arrests, prosecutions, tickets, or fines for marijuana
use or possession as long as such activity complies with existing regulations governing
such activities. If depenalization is unobtainable, states should decriminalize marijuana
possession for personal use by reclassifying all related criminal laws as civil offenses
only, with a maximum penalty of a small fine.
In addition to ending marijuana possession arrests, police departments should reform
order-maintenance policing strategies that focus on low-level offenses. Instead, law
enforcement should address public health questions and safety concerns in ways that
minimize the involvement of the criminal justice system by moving toward non-punitive,
transparent, collaborative community- and problem-oriented policing strategies.
These strategies should aim to serve, protect, and respect all communities. In addition,
the federal government should end inclusion of marijuana possession arrests as a
performance measure of law enforcement agencies’ use of or application for federal
funds, and redirect such funds currently designated to fight the War on Drugs toward
drug treatment, research on treatment models and strategies, and public education.

20
For example, Colorado’s Amendment 64 directs $24 million to the state’s Building Excellent Schools Today program, which 

is projected to create 372 new jobs from school construction projects by 2017. See CHRISTOPHER STIFFLER, COLO. CTR. FOR LAW AND POL’Y,

AMENDMENT 64 WOULD PRODUCE $60 MILLION IN NEW REVENUE AND SAVINGS FOR COLORADO 9 (2012) [hereinafter STIFFLER], available at http://www.

cclponline.org/postfiles/amendment_64_analysis_final.pdf. 

21
See WASHINGTON STATE OFFICE OF FIN. MGMT., FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT (I-502) (2012), available at http://www.ofm.wa.gov/

initiatives/2012/502_fiscal_impact.pdf. 

22
WASH. INITIATIVE 502 (I-502) (2012), available at http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/i502.pdf. 

23
JEFFREY A. MIRON & KATHERINE WALDOCK, CATO INST., THE BUDGETARY IMPACT OF ENDING DRUG PROHIBITION 1 (2010) [hereinafter MIRON & 

WALDOCK, BUDGETARY IMPACT], available at http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/DrugProhibitionWP.pdf. See Fiscal Cost Analysis 

infra pp. 68-71 (explaining the methodology used in the Miron and Waldock study).


Introduction

  13


 II. FINDINGS
FINDING Marijuana Arrests — 88% of Which Are for

#1

Possession Offenses — Have Risen Since 2001
and Accounted for Over Half (52%) of All Drug
Arrests in America in 2010

]  Between 2001 and 2010, there were over 7 million arrests (7,295,880)
for marijuana possession. In 2010 alone, of the 1,717,064 drug arrests in
America, over three-quarters of a million — 784,021 — were for marijuana
possession.
]  While overall drug arrests rose steadily between 1990 and 2006, between
2006 and 2010 they had fallen by over 200,000. Marijuana possession
arrests have not only been rising since 1990, when there were just over
250,000 marijuana possession arrests, but increased between 2006 and
2010. There were 100,000 more marijuana possession arrests in 2010 than
in 2001, an 18% increase; 200,000 more than in 1995, a 51% increase; and
over 500,000 more than in 1990, a 193% increase.
]  In 2010, nearly half (46%) of all drug arrests in America were for
marijuana possession, an increase from 34% in 1995. Between 2005
and 2010, the percentage of all drug arrests accounted for by marijuana
possession arrests increased 21%. In Alaska, 81% of all drug arrests were
for marijuana possession in 2010; in Nebraska and Montana, 73% and
70%, respectively; in Wyoming, Georgia, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Colorado,
60% or more of all drug arrests were for marijuana possession.
]  Of all marijuana arrests in 2010, 784,021, or 88%, were for possession. 

Similarly, 88% of all marijuana arrests between 2001 and 2010 — 

7,295,880 out of 8,244,943 — were for possession. 

]  In New York and Texas, the two states with the most marijuana arrests
in 2010, 97% were for possession. In nearly half of all states, over 90% of
marijuana arrests were for possession. In only seven states did possession

14

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 arrests account for less than 80% of all marijuana arrests, and in only two
(Massachusetts and Minnesota) was the figure below 65%.
]  The 12 states with the most marijuana possession arrests in 2010 made
over half a million total arrests: New York, which alone made over 100,000
arrests, Texas, Florida, California, Illinois, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia. In total numbers, the
states with the greatest increase in annual marijuana possession arrests
between 2001 and 2010 were Texas (20,681 more arrests in 2010 than in
2001), New York (16,173), Illinois (12,406), Florida (12,796), and Georgia
(9,425).
]  The national marijuana possession arrest rate in 2010 was 256 per
100,000 people. The jurisdictions with the highest overall marijuana
possession arrest rates per 100,000 residents were:
D.C.

846

New York

535

Nebraska

417

Maryland

409

Illinois

389

]  Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia had higher marijuana
possession arrest rates in 2010 than in 2001.24 The states with the greatest
percentage increases in marijuana possession arrest rates were Montana
(146%), Delaware (102%), Nevada (96%), the District of Columbia (62%),
and Oregon (45%).
]  Cook County, IL (includes Chicago) made the most marijuana possession
arrests in 2010 with over 33,000, or 91 per day.25 The five counties (or
boroughs) of New York City made a total of 59,451 marijuana possession
arrests, or 163 per day; Kings County (Brooklyn) made over 20,000,
24
In addition to the 50 states, this report has analyzed marijuana arrest and fiscal data for the District of Columbia. While the
District of Columbia is obviously not a state, the report includes the data for the District of Columbia when presenting both state and
county data. Thus, there are instances when the report presents state data (e.g., “the states with the highest” or “list of states”),
particularly in the graphs, charts, and tables, and includes the District of Columbia.
25
It is worth noting that in 2012 the Chicago City Council overwhelmingly voted to decriminalize marijuana possession, opting to
allow police to issue tickets rather than make arrests. Kristen Mack, Chicago OKs Pot Tickets, CHI. TRIBUNE, June 28, 2012 [hereinafter
Mack], available at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-28/news/ct-met-chicago-city-council-0628-20120628_1_pot-possession­
possession-of-small-amounts-pot-tickets.

Findings

  15


 Bronx County over 16,000. Los Angeles County, CA, made over 15,600
such arrests and Harris County, TX (includes Houston), almost 12,000.
There were another combined 30,000 arrests for marijuana possession
in Maricopa County, AZ (includes Phoenix), Fulton County, GA (includes
Atlanta), Clark County, NV (includes Las Vegas), and Baltimore City, MD;
and there were 40,000 more combined in San Diego and Orange Counties,
CA, Suffolk (part of Long Island) and Erie (includes Buffalo) Counties, NY,
St. Louis City, MO, Philadelphia County, PA, Milwaukee County, WI, Bexar
County, TX (includes San Antonio), and the District of Columbia.
]  The counties with the highest marijuana possession arrest rates per
100,000 residents were:
Worcester, MD

2,132

Kleberg, TX

1,294

Cole, MO

1,230

Bronx, NY

1,154

Baltimore City, MD

1,136

]  Teenagers and young adults bear the brunt of marijuana possession
arrests: 62% of marijuana possession arrests in 2010 were of people 24
years old or younger, and more than 34% were of teenagers or younger.

16

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 FINDING

#2

Extreme Racial Disparities in Marijuana 

Possession Arrests Exist Across the Country:
Blacks Are 3.73 Times More Likely Than Whites
to Be Arrested for Marijuana Possession

]  In 2010, nationwide the white arrest rate was 192 per 100,000 whites, and
the black arrest rate was 716 per 100,000 blacks.
]  Racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests are widespread and
exist in every region in the country. In the Northeast and Midwest, Blacks
are over four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession
than whites. In the South, Blacks are over three times more likely, and in
the West, they are twice more likely. In over one-third of the states, Blacks
are more than four times likelier to be arrested for marijuana possession
than whites.

Racial disparities in
marijuana possession
arrests exist regardless
of county household
income levels, though
they are worse in middle
income and more
affluent communities.

]  Racial disparities in marijuana
possession arrests exist
regardless of county household
income levels, and are greater
in middle income and more
affluent counties. In the counties
with the 15 highest median
household incomes (between
$85K–$115K), Blacks are two
to eight times more likely to
be arrested for marijuana
possession than whites. In
the 15 counties in the middle of the household income range (between
$45K–$46K), Blacks are over three times more likely to be arrested for
marijuana possession than whites. In the poorest 15 counties (median
household incomes between $22K–$30K), Blacks are generally 1.5 to five
times more likely to be arrested.

Racial Disparities at the State Level
]  The states (plus the District of Columbia) with the largest racial disparities
in marijuana possession arrest rates per 100,000 are:

Findings

  17


 Black
Arrest Rate

White
Arrest Rate

Times More Likely
Blacks Arrested

Iowa

1,454

174 

8.34

D.C.

1,489

185

8.05


Minnesota

835

107

7.81


Illinois

1,526

202

7.56


Wisconsin

1,285

215

5.98


Kentucky

697

117

5.95


Pennsylvania

606

117

5.19


Even at the “lower end” of the spectrum, the disparities persist. In Oregon,
for example, the state with the fifth lowest disparity, the Black arrest rate
(563) is still more than double the white arrest rate (271).
The states, plus the District of Columbia, with the highest Black arrest
rates per 100,000 for marijuana possession were:
Black Arrest Rate

Nebraska

1,699 


Illinois

1,526 


D.C.

1,489 


Iowa

1,454


Wisconsin

1,285 


Nevada

1,272


Wyoming

1,223


New York

1,192


]  While the Black arrest rate for marijuana possession was under 300
in only two states, Hawaii (179) and Massachusetts (61)(following
decriminalization), the white arrest rate was over 300 in only three states:
Wyoming (376), Nebraska (365), and Alaska (318). In only 10 states was
the Black arrest rate under 500, while in no state was the white arrest rate
over 400.

18

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 ]  Of marijuana possession arrests in the District of Columbia, a staggering
91% were of Blacks. In Mississippi, 69% of all marijuana possession
arrests were of Blacks. In Georgia and Louisiana, the numbers are 64%
and 61%, respectively. These figures are further illuminated when taking
into account the difference between Blacks’ percentage of marijuana
arrests and Blacks’ percentage of state populations. In Illinois, for
instance, Blacks make up 15% of the population, but account for 58%
of the marijuana possession arrests. Similarly, in Alabama, 60% of the
marijuana possession arrests are of Blacks, yet Blacks account for
less than 25% of the population. In Kentucky and Minnesota, Blacks
represent only 8% and 5% of the respective states, but 36% and 31% of the
marijuana possession arrests.

Racial Disparities at the County Level
]  This report examined 945 counties in the United States with at least 30,000
residents and where Blacks make up at least 2% of the population; these
945 counties represent 78% of the total United States population.26 Of
these counties, in only 37 (or 3.9%) is the white arrest rate for marijuana
possession higher than the Black arrest rate. In other words, in over 96%
of the counties examined in this report, Blacks are more likely than whites
to be arrested for marijuana possession.
]  The counties with the largest racial disparities in arrest rates for
marijuana possession are not necessarily in the states with the largest
racial disparities in arrest rates. For instance, Missouri has the 40th
largest Black-white arrest ratio (2.63) of all the states, but in St. Louis
City, MO, one white person is arrested for every 18.4 Black persons
arrested. Georgia has the 21st largest racial disparity (3.69), but in Gordon,
GA, the ratio is one white arrest for every 14.1 Black arrests (or 136 white
arrests per 100,000 as compared to 1,921 Black arrests per 100,000). Ohio
is 16th on the racial disparity list (4.11), but in Allen, OH, Blacks are 13.2
times more likely to be arrested than whites. Kings County (Brooklyn),
New York has the 10th largest racial disparity in marijuana possession
arrests at 4.52); 161 whites per 100,000 are arrested, whereas 1,554
Blacks per 100,000 are arrested — a ratio of 9.68.
26
When reporting the national and state data regarding marijuana possession arrests, this report considers all 3,143 counties and
100% of the population of the United States.

Findings

  19


 ]  The counties with the highest Black arrest rates for marijuana possession
are spread throughout the country, from Campbell and Kenton, KY, to
Worcester, MD; from Dare, NC, to Livingston and Montgomery, IL; from
Onondaga, Broome, and Chautauqua, NY, to Chambers, Kleberg, Hopkins,
Cooke, and Van Zandt, TX.
]  92% of marijuana possession arrests in Baltimore City, MD, were of
Blacks; 87% in Fulton, GA (includes Atlanta); 85% in Prince George’s, MD;
83% in Shelby, TN (includes Memphis); and 82% in Philadelphia, PA.
]  These staggering racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests
exist in many counties irrespective of the overall Black population. For
example, in Lycoming and Lawrence, PA, and in Kenton County, KY,
Blacks make up less than 5% of the population, but are between 10 and
11 times more likely than whites to be arrested. In Hennepin County, MN
(includes Minneapolis), and Champaign and Jackson Counties, IL, Blacks
are 12%, 13%, and 15% of the population, respectively, but are 9 times
more likely to be arrested than whites. In Brooklyn, NY, and St. Louis City,
MO, Blacks comprise 37% and 50% of the residents, respectively, and
are 12 and 18 times more likely to be arrested than whites. In Chambers,
AL, and St. Landry, LA, Blacks account for more than twice as many
marijuana arrests (90% and 89%, respectively) than they do of the overall
population (39% and 42%, respectively). In Morgan and Pike Counties, AL,
Blacks make up just over 12% and 37% of the population, respectively, but
account for 100% of the marijuana possession arrests.

FINDING

#3

While There Were Pronounced Racial Disparities
in Marijuana Arrests Ten Years Ago, the
Disparities Have Increased

]  As the overall number of marijuana arrests has increased over the past
decade, the white arrest rate has remained constant at around 192 per
100,000, whereas the Black arrest rate has risen from 537 per 100,000
in 2001 (and 521 per 100,000 in 2002) to 716 per 100,000 in 2010. Hence,
it appears that the increase in marijuana arrest rates overall is largely a
result of the increase in the arrest rates of Blacks.

20

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 ]  Racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests have increased in 38 of
the 50 states (and in the District of Columbia) over the past decade. The
states where the disparities have increased the most since 2001 are:
Black/White Arrest Ratio

% Change
in Disparity

2001

2010

Alaska

0.3 

1.6

+384%

Minnesota

2.4 

7.8

+231%

Wisconsin

2.4 

6.0

+153%

Michigan

1.3 

3.3

+149%

Kentucky

2.4 

6.0

+146%

Tennessee

1.8 

4.0

+122%

Ohio 

1.9

4.1

+118%

FINDING

#4

Blacks and Whites Use Marijuana at
Similar Rates

]  Marijuana use is roughly equal among Blacks and whites. In 2010, 14%
of Blacks and 12% of whites reported using marijuana in the past year; in
2001, the figure was 10% of whites and 9% of Blacks. In every year from
2001 to 2010, more whites than Blacks between the ages of 18 and 25
reported using marijuana in the previous year. In 2010, 34% of whites and
27% of Blacks reported having last used marijuana more than one year
ago — a constant trend over the past decade. In the same year, 59% of
Blacks and 54% of whites reported having never used marijuana. Each
year over the past decade more Blacks than whites reported that they had
never used marijuana.
]  The relentless criminalization of marijuana has not had a noticeable
deterrent effect on usage rates, which have remained constant over time.
Notably, marijuana use reached an all-time low around 1990, when there

Findings

  21


 were far fewer arrests for marijuana possession. As law enforcement
has increasingly prioritized marijuana possession arrests, usage rates
have risen. Generally, from 1980 to 2000 there was no upward trend in
the number of people using marijuana. Since 2000, however, marijuana
use has generally increased among persons aged 18 or older and has
remained approximately the same for persons aged 12 to 17.

FINDING

#5

Money Wasted on Marijuana Arrests: States 

Spent Over $3.6 Billion on Marijuana Possession 

Enforcement in 2010

]  The ACLU estimates the total national expenditure of enforcing
marijuana possession laws at approximately $3.613 billion. In 2010,
states spent an estimated $1,747,157,206 policing marijuana possession
arrests, $1,371,200,815 adjudicating marijuana possession cases, and
$495,611,826 incarcerating individuals for marijuana possession.
]  New York and California combined spent over $1 billion to enforce their
marijuana laws in 2010.27 Add the amount of money that Texas, Illinois,
Florida, New Jersey, Georgia, and Ohio spent, and the total is over $2
billion.
]  Over half of the states (27) each spent over $30 million in 2010 enforcing
marijuana possession laws.
]  Even when discounting entirely all state fiscal spending on prison
facilities, corrections expenditures associated with marijuana possession
enforcement are significant — California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and
Texas, for example, each spent more than an estimated $20 million of
state taxpayer money in 2010 housing individuals in local jail and county

27
Note that California’s expenditures in 2011 would be lower following decriminalization of possession of 28.5 grams or less of
marijuana in 2010 and the accompanying drop in marijuana arrests. See Kamala D. Harris, CAL. DEP’T OF JUST. CRIM. JUST. STATISTICS CTR.,
CRIME IN CALIFORNIA: 2011 2 & 26 (2012), available at http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/cjsc/publications/candd/cd11/cd11.pdf? (noting
the decline in misdemeanor marijuana arrests after reclassification).

22

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 correctional facilities for possession of marijuana, with New York and
California spending more than $65 million apiece.
]  The states, including the District of Columbia, that had the highest per
capita fiscal expenditures enforcing marijuana possession laws in 2010
were, in order: the District of Columbia, New York, Maryland, Illinois,
and Wyoming, followed closely by Nevada, Delaware, New Jersey, and
Connecticut.

Findings

  23


 PROFILE


DeMarcus Sanders, 26
Waterloo, IA
he first time DeMarcus Sanders was arrested for having marijuana,
it cost him his job, his driver’s license, the start of a college degree, a
month in jail, and thousands of dollars.

T

A police officer pulled Mr. Sanders over for playing his music too loud. “My
music was up,” he said. “So I didn’t argue with him.”

The first time DeMarcus
Sanders was arrested
for having marijuana,
it cost him his job, his
driver’s license, the
start of a college degree,
a month in jail, and
thousands of dollars.

After the police officer ran
Mr. Sanders’ license, he
said he smelled marijuana,
and insisted on searching
the car. The police found
marijuana, arrested Mr.
Sanders, and charged
him with possession of
marijuana. Mr. Sanders pled
guilty and was sentenced
to 30 days in jail. While in
jail, he was let go from his
janitorial job and lost credit
for the college classes he

had been taking.
Even though it has been a few years since he was arrested, Mr. Sanders
still owes the state $2,346 for room and board at the jail, and for fines,
court costs, and other fees. “They always send you threats like ‘You’ll get
more jail time if you don’t hurry up and pay this off,’” he said.
But as Mr. Sanders is all too aware, it is hard to pay off fines when you do
not have a job, and it is hard to find or keep a job when you do not have
a driver’s license. Getting arrested for marijuana possession in Iowa
automatically triggers a six-month suspension of one’s license. And one
has to pay off a certain percentage of court fees and fines before it can be
reinstated.

24

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 In fact, of all the consequences of his marijuana arrest, the biggest
challenge has been losing his driver’s license. Waterloo does not have
much public transportation, so not being able to drive makes it difficult to
do many things, such as job-hunting and grocery shopping. It is also hard
because Mr. Sanders has full custody of his 8-year-old son, Daivion, and
it can be difficult to take him places, such as doctors’ appointments. Mr.
Sanders says he was offered, but had to turn down, a job in Cedar Rapids,
because it was 45 minutes away and he did not have a license.
Mr. Sanders’ last steady job was as a construction worker in Waterloo.
However, the construction business in Iowa slows down significantly during
the winter, so now he is making ends meet doing small jobs for his father’s
yard work business and his grandfather’s funeral home. To save money, he
and his son live with Mr. Sanders’ mother and brother.

Profile

  25


 Mr. Sanders feels like being an AfricanAmerican in Waterloo makes him a target
for the police. Mr. Sanders was arrested for
marijuana possession again last July. Two
plainclothes police officers stopped him one
night for crossing the street in downtown
Waterloo against the light. They said his
jaywalking had nearly caused an accident. Mr.
Sanders said he was in the crosswalk, and
there were no cars or other pedestrians at that
hour.
The police officer patted him down, then asked
to search him.
“I told him, ‘No, you cannot,’” Mr. Sanders
remembers. “I haven’t done anything. I’m
not drunk, I’m not high. I’m not bothering
anybody.”
But they handcuffed and searched him anyway, claiming that they could
see something in the pocket of his jeans, and found a small bag of
marijuana. The police arrested him, booked him, and gave him a citation.
Mr. Sanders fought the case, and the judge threw it out after ruling that the
marijuana could not be used as evidence because the police violated Mr.
Sanders’ constitutional rights when they searched him.
Mr. Sanders said he wants to be reasonable, but he is also frustrated.
“I understand cops have to do their jobs. I’m not bashing cops,” he said.
“[But] you’re on me now, my name hasn’t brought up anything and you’re
on me, that’s profiling. You’re racially profiling me.”

26

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 PROFILE

Alfredo Carrasquillo, 29
New York, NY

A

lfredo Carrasquillo’s first
rule about life in the city is
never stand on the corner in
a group. His second rule is never
stand on the corner by yourself.
“You’re a bull’s-eye if you’re
standing in a group or by yourself,”
he said. “You’re just making
yourself a target.”
Mr. Carrasquillo grew up in the
South Bronx and has been working
as a community organizer in lowincome neighborhoods for years.
He says he has not yet taught the
rules to his 11-year-old daughter,
Taneshia, and his 6-year-old son,
Alfredo, Jr. But he will.

To avoid getting stopped by the
police, Mr. Carrasquillo does not walk
through public housing complexes,
even if it is the shortest route. He
wears button-up shirts as often as
possible. And he always carries his
identification.  
“I’m Black regardless,” he said. “I
can’t escape it. What you try to figure
out is how to minimize it. And that’s
definitely what I’ve done.”

“I’m Black
regardless,” says
Mr. Carrasquillo.
“I can’t escape it.
And let’s be honest.
It’s not just about
smoking. It’s also
about race.”

But his rules have not been enough
to protect him: he has been arrested

Profile

  27


 several times for having marijuana. Sometimes, he said, it was after the
police stopped him on the street and frisked him for no reason. Other
times, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time when the police were
doing security checks in and around a building in public housing.
That is what happened the last time the police arrested Mr. Carrasquillo,
about a year and a half ago. It was a summer evening, and he and a group of
friends were in the courtyard of the housing project where one of his friends
lived.
“A lot of times, that’s where we hang out, because there aren’t many places
for us to go. As a big group, we can’t all go up to somebody’s house,” he
said. Besides, it was hot and everybody wanted to be outside.
The police asked everyone to put their hands on their heads, and began
searching them. The search, as Mr. Carrasquillo remembers it, “went
from being a pat-down to going into our pockets. Whatever we had [in our
pockets] they pulled out.”
Most of what the police pulled out, they gave back. Except that day, Mr.
Carrasquillo had a five-dollar bag of marijuana in his pocket. “And [the
police officer] was like, ‘you know what? I’m going to have to take you in for
that.’”
Mr. Carrasquillo said the police arrested him and he then spent three days
in jail. He was arrested on a Friday and not released until Monday. He was
strip-searched at the precinct, then held at Bronx Central Booking, where,
Mr. Carrasquillo says, “People are literally shoulder to shoulder. The toilet is
in the cell and you have to use it in front of other people. There are rats and
roaches all over, the walls are dirty, and there is food left over on the floor.”
When Mr. Carrasquillo was finally brought to court, he pled guilty, and was
ordered to pay $120 in court fees and stay out of trouble for one year.
Mr. Carrasquillo is angry, but also resigned. “It’s the price you pay to smoke
[marijuana] and be a person of color,” he said. “Let’s be honest. It’s not just
about smoking. It’s also about race.”

28

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 III.

METHODOLOGY

This report relies on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting
Program (“FBI/UCR Program”) and the United States Census’ annual county population
estimates by age, sex, race, and ethnicity to document arrest rates per 100,000 for
marijuana possession by race. This report is the first to report and examine this data for
all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia.
This report provides a purely descriptive analysis. In other words, the data is used
to describe the problem of racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests, and
not to formally test a specific causal hypothesis as to why such disparities exist. A
more scholarly analysis would employ panel data techniques on this county-level
data, controlling for a set of time-varying explanatory variables, such as total drug
arrests and drug use, to test whether the coefficient on the race variable is statistically
significant. Ideally, the multivariate regression analysis would also control for individual
characteristics of each arrest, such as amount of marijuana possessed and the age and
criminal history record of the individual arrested, as well as for various forms of withincounty variation (e.g., on average, within a given county, are Blacks more likely than
whites to live in high-density residential areas where the arrest rate overall is higher?).
Given that the FBI/UCR Program aggregates arrest data at the level of local enforcement
agency, however, individual characteristics of an arrest at a more granular level than
that of the local enforcement agency will require the use of a different dataset and, short
of a vast and very costly data collection effort, is likely to preclude a truly nationwide
analysis along the lines of this report. Moreover, given the pervasiveness of the problem
of racially disparate arrests, existing, as our data reveals, in counties of different sizes,
population densities, demographics, and economic well-being, it is not immediately
clear just what variable, if not race itself, could in fact be the true driving causal force
behind the consistent and widespread racial disparities in marijuana possession arrest
rates in the vast majority of counties in this country. This report neither attempts nor
provides an empirical answer to that question, and thus presents the opportunity for
future research on this fertile topic.
To calculate the white/Black arrest rate for marijuana possession in a given jurisdiction,
the number of white/Black arrests for marijuana possession is divided by the white/
Black population in the given jurisdiction (e.g., the state or county); the corresponding
ratio is then multiplied by 100,000 to obtain the arrest rate per 100,000. In this report,
the measure of racial disparity in a given jurisdiction in terms of arrests for marijuana

Methodology

  29


 possession is calculated as the ratio of the Black arrest rate to the white arrest rate.
So, for example, a racial disparity measure (or ratio) of 3 implies that the rate at which
Blacks are arrested for marijuana possession is 3 times the rate at which whites are
arrested for marijuana possession.

A. Data
i. Sources
The marijuana possession arrest data presented in this report was obtained largely from
the FBI/UCR Program. This program annually collects data from state and local law
enforcement agencies. In particular, the two main FBI/UCR data sets used in the report
are:
Q  Uniform Crime Reporting Data [United States]: Arrests by Age, Sex, and Race
[Alternative Title: ASR], 2001-2010
Q  Uniform Crime Reporting Data [United States]: County-Level Detailed Arrest
and Offense Data, 1995-2010
Both series are publicly available through the Inter-University Consortium for Political
and Social Research (ICPSR) at the University of Michigan.
Annual county population estimates by age, sex, race, and ethnicity were drawn from the
United States Census:
Q  U.S. Census Bureau, Annual County Resident Population Estimates by Age, Sex,
Race, and Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2010
Additional county-level data on median household income were also drawn from the
United States Census:
Q U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates: 2006-2010
Data on marijuana use were obtained from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health
(NSDUH):
Q  Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Results from
the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings,
NSDUH Series H-41, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 11-4658: 2011

30

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 The NSDUH survey is the primary source of information on the use of illicit drugs,
alcohol, and tobacco in the civilian, non-institutionalized population of the United States
aged 12 years old or older. Approximately 67,500 persons are interviewed for the NSDUH
survey each year. It is important to note that the terms “white” and “Black” in this data
set do not include Latinos, unlike the FBI/UCR data sets, in which the terms “white”
and “Black” do include Latino (see below for a discussion of FBI/UCR handling of Latino
data). In other words, the SAMHSA data set includes a separate category for marijuana
usage rates among Latinos, whereas the FBI/UCR does not include a separate category
for marijuana possession arrests of Latinos.
Finally, the fiscal cost analysis utilizes the aforementioned arrest data and draws
supplemental data from the Justice Expenditure and Employment Extracts, 2009:
Q  Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Expenditure and Employment
Extracts (CJEE) Program, Percent Distribution of Expenditure for the Justice
System by Type of Government, Fiscal Year 2009. Filename: cjee0903.csv
This expenditure data is drawn from the Census Bureau’s Annual Government Finance
Survey and Annual Survey of Public Employment. This series includes national-,
federal-, and state-level estimates of government expenditures and employment for
the following justice categories: (1) police protection; (2) all judicial functions (including
prosecution, courts, and public defense); and (3) corrections.
It should be noted that Illinois, Florida, the District of Columbia, and the five counties
(or boroughs) of New York City do not report data on marijuana possession arrests by
race to the FBI/UCR Program. To obtain data on marijuana possession arrests for all
102 counties in Illinois, the authors filed a Freedom of Information Act request with
the Illinois Department of State Police (ISP). Every policing body in Illinois is required
by statute to report crime statistics to the ISP, which acts as a central repository and
custodian for crime statistics. Likewise, to obtain data on marijuana possession for all 67
counties in Florida, the authors submitted a research proposal for statistical information
to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE). The FDLE maintains arrest
data for all criminal offenses in the Computerized Criminal History Central Repository
for Florida. The data for the District of Columbia was acquired by filing a Freedom of
information Act request with the Research and Analysis Branch of the D.C. Metropolitan
Police Department (MPD), which collects, analyzes, and disseminates crime and arrest
data amongst other data sources. Finally, the data for New York City was obtained by
making a records request under New York state’s Freedom of Information Law with the
Office of Justice Research and Performance of the New York State Division of Criminal
Justice Services (DCJS) and the Criminal Court of the City of New York.

Methodology

  31


 ii. The Latino Data Problem

This report’s sole focus on Black-white racial disparities is the result of the fact that
the FBI/UCR arrest data does not identify Latinos as a distinct racial group and thus
does not distinguish between white and Latino arrests. In other words, an arrest of a
Latino is overwhelmingly categorized as a “white” arrest. This conflation of Latino and
white arrests not only prevents calculation of Latino arrest rates based on the UCR
data, but also results in an underestimation of the racial disparities between Black and
white arrests, since a portion — potentially a significant portion in some places — of
the “white” arrests are likely arrests of Latinos. Put another way, classifying Latinos as
whites for the purposes of reporting arrest data to the FBI/UCR Program can inflate the
“true” white arrest rate and, in turn, deflate the “true” racial disparity in arrest rates
between whites and Blacks. Therefore, in any jurisdiction where the Latino arrest rate is
greater than the white arrest rate — which we suspect is the case in many jurisdictions
— the arrest rate disparities between Blacks and whites will be even more pronounced
than the disparities as captured by the FBI/UCR data. So, for instance, suppose that
there are an equal number of whites, Latinos, and Blacks in a jurisdiction, and that
the true arrest rates for these three groups are 100, 200, and 300, respectively. If all
Latinos are classified as white, then the reported “white” arrest would be calculated
as 150, implying a Black/white racial disparity of 2 (= 300 (Black arrest rate)/150 (white
arrest rate)) when, in fact, the true racial disparity is 3 (= 300/100). Indeed, based on the
limited data we have from two states for which we have Black, white, and Latino arrest
data (New York and California), it appears that Latinos are arrested at higher rates
than whites, sometimes significantly so, but at lower rates than Blacks, and that there
are fewer arrests of whites than suggested by the FBI/UCR data. In New York City, for
example, where Latino arrest data exists, Latinos are arrested at 2.5 times the rates
of whites for marijuana possession. See Appendix A, Figure A1. We are thus able to
capture a more accurate Black-white arrest disparity, revealing that Blacks are arrested
at 6.3 times the rate of whites (and 2.5 times the rate of Latinos). Were all Latino arrests
categorized as “white” arrests in New York City, the Black-white arrest disparity, while
evident, would be lower.28
Indeed, of the 10 states with the lowest disparities in Black-white arrest rates — Hawaii,
Alaska, Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, Maine, California, Texas, Arizona, and Rhode
Island — seven are among the 15 states with the highest Latino populations, including
the top four: New Mexico, California, Texas, and Arizona. In other words, in these states,
28
At the same time, the inclusion of Latino data will not always have as significant an impact on the reported disparities in the
Black and white arrest rates. In California, Latinos are arrested for all marijuana offenses at only a slightly greater rate than whites.
See Appendix A, Figure A2. Therefore, the exclusion of Latino arrest data in California would not result in a significant underestimation
of the Black-white arrest disparity.

32

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 a portion, if not a significant number, of marijuana possession arrests are of Latinos, but
the FBI/UCR likely classifies them as “white” arrests, thereby reducing artificially the
Black-white arrest disparities to the extent that Latinos are arrested at higher rates than
whites. That is, if many of those “white” arrests are actually arrests of Latinos, and if
the Latino arrest rate is greater than the white arrest rate, the actual Black-white arrest
rates are much greater than the disparities contained in the present data. How much
greater, unfortunately, cannot be ascertained from the present FBI/UCR data.29
Similarly, in 22 of the 25 counties where Latinos account for the highest percentage
of the overall population, the Black-white disparity in marijuana possession arrests is
below the national average. See Appendix A, Figure A3. This is likely because many
of the “white” arrests in those counties are, in fact, of Latinos, yet because they are
counted as “white” arrests, the white arrest rate is inflated artificially. If the actual
number of white arrests was known, the Black-white arrest disparities in many if not all
of these counties would be larger, if not also equal to or above the national average.

iii. Counting and Classifying Marijuana Possession Arrests
The FBI/UCR Program counts one arrest for each separate instance in which a person
is arrested, cited, or summoned for an offense. Because a person may be arrested
more than once during a year, the FBI/UCR arrest numbers used in this report do not
reflect the actual number of individuals who have been arrested; rather, the arrest data
shows the total number of times that persons have been arrested, as reported by law
enforcement agencies to the FBI/UCR Program.
Further, when someone is arrested for multiple crimes arising from a single police
enforcement action, the FBI/UCR Program calls it a “multiple-offense situation.” As
a general rule, a multiple-offense situation requires classifying each of the offenses
committed and determining which of them are Part I offenses as opposed to non-Part I
offenses.30 The Hierarchy Rule, as described in the FBI/UCR Handbook, requires that in
29
The two states with the lowest Black-white disparity in marijuana possession arrest rates, Hawaii and Alaska, have large
non-Black/non-white populations: Hawaii is almost 60% non-Black/non-white (39% Asian, 10% Native Hawaiian, 9% Latino) and Alaska
is over one-quarter non-Black/non-white (15% American Indian or Alaska Native, 6% Asian, 6% Latino). In Alaska, the arrest rate for
persons classified as Native American or Native Alaskan is 366 compared to 318 for whites and 510 for Blacks. Thus, in Alaska, there
are still racial disparities in arrest rates for marijuana possession between whites and Blacks, but also between whites and Native
Americans/Native Alaskans, although the latter disparity is not quite as large (i.e., 1.2 as compared to 1.6). Interestingly, in Hawaii, the
arrest rate for persons classified as Asian, Pacific Islander, or Native Hawaiian is 117 as compared to 181 for whites and 179 for Blacks,
revealing that there exists a racial disparity in arrest rates for marijuana possession not with respect to whites and Blacks, but rather
with respect to the majority Asian/Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian populations and the minority white and Black populations.
30
Part I offenses include: (1) Criminal Homicide, (2) Forcible Rape, (3) Robbery, (4) Aggravated Assault, (5) Burglary, (6) LarcenyTheft (except Motor Vehicle Theft), (7) Motor Vehicle Theft, and (8) Arson. See U.S. DEP’T OF JUST., FED. BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNIFORM
CRIME REPORTING HANDBOOK 8 (2004), available at http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/handbook/ucrhandbook04.pdf.

Methodology

  33


 a multiple-offense situation — when more than one Part I offense is classified — the law
enforcement agency must identify the offense involved that is highest on the hierarchy
list and score that offense and not the other offense(s).31 Most relevantly for present
purposes, in a multiple-offense incident involving, for example, both Part I (e.g., Robbery
— Other Dangerous Weapon) and non-Part I offenses (e.g., Marijuana — Possession),
only the Part I offense, Robbery — Other Dangerous Weapon, must be classified and
scored. The arrest for marijuana possession would not be reported in this situation.
Thus, any racial disparity observed in the FBI/UCR data with respect to marijuana
possession is not a product of differential arrest rates for Part I crimes, as marijuana
possession offenses are not recorded with respect to these offenses. By contrast, in
a multiple-offense incident involving marijuana possession and a traffic violation —
neither of which constitute a Part I offense — the enforcement action is coded as both
a marijuana possession arrest and a traffic violation (i.e., the Hierarchy Rule does not
apply in this situation).

B. Coverage

Ratios

The FBI/UCR Arrests by Age, Sex, and Race data set indicates the coverage population
for each county, which is the size of the total population covered by all of the reporting
agencies in that county. The coverage population can be compared to the total census
population in the county to calculate a coverage ratio.
Participation in the FBI/UCR Program varies among jurisdiction. Many counties have
full participation with all local enforcement agencies in the county reporting to the
FBI/UCR Program. As a result of budgetary and information constraints, however,
certain agencies within some counties do not report to the FBI/UCR Program. So, for
example, within a given county, if the size of the total population covered by all of the
local enforcement agencies reporting to the FBI/UCR Program is 100,000 and the total
population size of the county itself is also 100,000, then the coverage ratio for that
county is calculated as 1.0 (= 100,000/100,000), or 100%. Similarly, if the size of the total
population covered by all of the reporting local enforcement agencies within a given
county is 50,000 and the total county population size is 100,000, then the coverage ratio
for that county is calculated as 0.5 (= 50,000/100,000), or 50%.
If the coverage ratio in a county is equal to one (i.e., 100%), then the arrest data for that
county is analyzed as reported. In large metropolitan areas, the coverage ratio tends

31

See id. at 10-12.

34

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 to be equal to one. If the coverage ratio in a county is less than one, however, then the
report weighted the arrest data for that county by a factor equal to 1/(coverage ratio). So,
for example, if the coverage ratio in a given county is 0.8 (or 80%), then the raw arrest
numbers (e.g., total arrests, Black arrests, white arrests) are increased by a weight
of 1.25 (= 1/0.8). This imputation procedure produces a national number and provides
comparable data across all counties in the United States.
To test the validity of this imputation procedure, we compared the total number of
arrests for marijuana possession, using the above imputation procedure, to the total
number of arrests for marijuana possession as reported in the FBI/UCR County-Level
Detailed Arrest and Offense data set, which employs its own imputation procedure to
provide arrest data for marijuana possession for all counties in the United States, but
which does not report county-level arrest numbers by race — or age and sex for that
matter. The numbers are approximately equal, suggesting that the procedure described
above yields reliable estimates of the total number of arrests for marijuana possession;
or, at least, estimates that are generally consistent across the two main FBI/UCR data
sets reporting arrest numbers for marijuana possession.
Finally, when reporting county-level results (as opposed to state-level results or results
for the country as a whole), this report considers only those counties where the coverage
ratio exceeds 0.5 (or 50%). Recall that the lower the coverage ratio, the greater the
likelihood that the arrest estimates do not accurately reflect the arrest activities of the
jurisdiction as a whole. Thus, because the possibility that arrest activities in areas of a
county not covered by the FBI/UCR Program may look different from that suggested by
available data for that county, a difference that generally increases as the coverage ratio
decreases, this report extrapolates in the manner described above only if a majority of
the county population is covered by local enforcement agencies reporting to the FBI/
UCR Program. Most counties satisfy this reporting condition; in 2010, for example,
the coverage ratio was greater than or equal to 0.5 (or 50%) in 3,011 out of 3,143 total
counties (i.e., in approximately 96% of all counties). In fact, it is worth noting that in
89% of all counties the coverage ratio is greater than 0.9 (or 90%). Additionally, when
reporting county-level results, this report usually further restricts the subset of counties
considered to those in which the total census population exceeds 30,000 and the Black
population percentage share of the total county population is greater than 2%. This is to
ensure that the Black population within a given county is large enough to draw reliable
conclusions from the county’s arrest rates. Specifically, in 2010, 945 counties in the
United States had a coverage ratio greater than 0.5 (or 50%) and satisfied these two
demographic criteria. These 945 counties comprise 78% of the population of the United
States.

Methodology

  35


 MARIJUANA ARRESTS HAVE RISEN

SIGNIFICANTLY BETWEEN 2001 AND

2010, AND THE RACIAL DISPARITIES

OF THOSE ARRESTS HAVE INCREASED


IV.

A. The

Rise in Marijuana Arrests

i. National Data
Marijuana arrests have risen over the past two decades. Between 2001 and 2010 alone,
there were 8,244,943 marijuana arrests, more than 7 million of which (7,295,880) were for
marijuana possession. There were 100,000 more marijuana possession arrests in 2010
than in 2001 (an 18% increase); 200,000 more than in 1995 (a 51% increase); and over
500,000 more than in 1990 (a 193% increase).
While the total number of drug arrests overall reached an astonishing peak of more
than 1.9 million in 2006, they had fallen by over 200,000 in 2010. See Figure 1. Marijuana
arrests, on the other hand, did not follow this trend. In fact, in 2006, there were over
800,000 total marijuana arrests for the first time, and in every year between 2006 and
2010 the number of marijuana arrests remained above 845,000. Similarly, the total
number of marijuana possession arrests reached 700,000 in 2004 and remained above
750,000 each year between 2006 and 2010. See Figure 2.
FIGURE 1
Total Number of Drug Arrests in U.S. (1995-2010)
2,000,000
1,900,000
1,800,000
1,700,000
1,600,000
1,500,000
1,400,000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: County-Level Detailed Arrest and Offense Data, 1995-2010

36

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 FIGURE 2
Number of Arrests for Marijuana Possession in U.S. (1995-2010)
850,000
800,000
750,000
700,000
650,000
600,000
550,000
500,000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: County-Level Detailed Arrest and Offense Data, 1995-2010

Consequently, of the 1,717,064 drug arrests in the United States in 2010, more than
half — 889,133, or 52% — were for marijuana, and almost half — 784,021, or 46% — were
for marijuana possession. See Figure 3. The percentage of all drug arrests in the United
States that were for marijuana possession has increased 21% since 2005, and 34% since
1995.
FIGURE 3
Percentage of All Drug Arrests That Were for Marijuana Possession (1995-2010)
46%
44%
42%
40%
38%
36%
34%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: County-Level Detailed Arrest and Offense Data, 1995-2010

Marijuana Arrests

  37


 Since 1999, 87.5% of all marijuana arrests have been for possession, while only 12.5%
have been for sale or manufacture. See Figure 4.
FIGURE 4
Percentage of All Marijuana Arrests That Were for Possession (1995-2010)
90%

89%

88%

87%

86%

85%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: County-Level Detailed Arrest and Offense Data, 1995-2010

Teenagers and young adults bear the brunt of the marijuana possession arrest policies
in this country; 77% of marijuana arrests in 2010 were of people 29 or younger, 62%
were of people younger than 25, and more than one-third were of teenagers and pre­
teens. See Figure 5.

FIGURE 5
Breakdown of Marijuana Possession Arrests by Age (2010)

7%

3%

6%
10%

13%

18%
15%

28%

Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: County-Level
Detailed Arrest and Offense Data, 2010

38

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


15 or Under
16-17
18-19
20-24
25-29
30-39
40-49
50 or Over

 ii. State Data
There were 784,021 arrests for marijuana possession in 2010. Half a million were made
by 12 states: New York, Texas, Florida, California, Illinois, Georgia, Maryland, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia. See Appendix A, Table A1 for
full state list. New York State alone made more than 100,000 arrests for marijuana
possession. See Figure 6.
FIGURE 6
States with Highest Numbers of Arrests for Marijuana Possession (2010)
New York
Texas
Florida
California
Illinois
Georgia
Maryland
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
North Carolina
Ohio
Virginia
Missouri
Arizona
Tennessee

103,698
74,286
57,951
57,262
49,904
32,473
23,663
21,659
21,287
20,983
19,178
18,756
18,416
18,348
18,031

0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data

100,000

120,000

In nearly half of all states, over 90% of marijuana arrests were for possession. In only
seven states did possession arrests account for less than 80% of all marijuana arrests,
and in only two — Massachusetts and Minnesota — was the figure below 65%. See
Appendix A, Table A2.

Marijuana Arrests

  39


 In 28 states, half or more of all drug arrests were for marijuana possession in 2010. See
Appendix A, Table A3. In Alaska, 81% of all drug arrests were for marijuana possession;
in Nebraska and Montana, 73% and 70%, respectively; in Wyoming, Georgia, Iowa,
Wisconsin, and Colorado, between 61% and 67%. See Table 1.
TABLE 1
States Where Marijuana Possession Arrests Account for Highest Percentage
of All Drug Arrests (2010)
Number of Arrests
State
Alaska
Nebraska
Montana
Wyoming
Georgia
Iowa
Wisconsin
Colorado
New York
Rhode Island
Alabama
North Dakota
Arizona
West Virginia
Oregon

Marijuana Possession

Marijuana Possession

All Drug Offenses

% of All Drug Arrests

2,028
7,437
1,210
2,104
32,473
6,123
15,950
10,343
103,698
2,253
5,235
1,162
18,348
4,400
9,849

2,517
10,217
1,723
3,136
49,876
9,758
26,206
17,029
174,493
3,809
9,077
2,054
32,628
7,986
18,047

80.6%
72.8%
70.2%
67.1%
65.1%
62.8%
60.9%
60.7%
59.4%
59.1%
57.7%
56.6%
56.2%
55.1%
54.6%

Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: County-Level Detailed Arrest and Offense Data, 2010

40

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 The national marijuana possession arrest rate in 2010 was 256 per 100,000. The
jurisdictions with the highest marijuana possession arrest rates per 100,000 were the
District of Columbia (846, which is 3.3 times greater than the national rate), New York
(535, which is more than double the national rate), Nebraska (417), Maryland (409), and
Illinois (389). See Figure 7.
FIGURE 7
States with Highest Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates (2010)
D.C.
New York
Nebraska
Maryland
Illinois
Wyoming
South Carolina
Nevada
Georgia
Mississippi
Missouri
Florida
Alaska
Louisiana
Texas

846
535
417
409
389
374
359
341
338
317
308
308
304
300
295

0

200

400
600
Arrest Rates per 100,000
Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data

800

1,000

Marijuana Arrests

  41


 Twenty nine states and the District of Columbia had higher marijuana possession arrest
rates in 2010 than in 2001. See Appendix A, Table A4. The states with the greatest
percentage increases in marijuana possession arrest rates were Montana (146%),
Delaware (102%), Nevada (96%), the District of Columbia (62%), and Oregon (45%). See
Table 2. In total numbers, the states with the greatest increase in marijuana possession
arrests since 2001 were Texas (20,681), New York (16,173), Illinois (12,406), Florida
(12,796), and Georgia (9,425).32
TABLE 2
States with Largest Percent Increases in Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates
(2001-2010)
Arrest Rates per 100,000
State
Montana
Delaware
Nevada
D.C.
Oregon
Missouri
Tennessee
Virginia
Illinois
South Carolina
Maryland
West Virginia
Pennsylvania
Connecticut
Georgia

Total Arrest Rate (2001)

Total Arrest Rate (2010)

% Change in Total
Arrest Rate

52
140
174
524
177
214
210
177
300
278
328
196
136
201
282

127
284
341
846
257
308
284
234
389
359
409
241
167
247
338

145.8%
102.1%
96.0%
61.5%
44.8%
43.6%
35.3%
31.7%
29.6%
29.2%
24.7%
23.3%
23.0%
22.5%
19.6%

Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Arrests by Age, Sex, and Race and U.S. Census Data

32
The states that saw the largest decrease in marijuana arrest rates were Massachusetts (-86%), Kentucky (-61%), Alabama
(-54%), New Mexico (-46%), and Washington (-29%). See Appendix A, Table A4.

42

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 iii. County Data
Cook County, IL (includes Chicago33), made the most marijuana possession arrests in
2010 with over 33,000, or 91 per day. Kings County (Brooklyn), Bronx County, and New
York County (Manhattan), NY, made over 20,000,16,000, and 11,000, respectively (the five
counties, or boroughs, of New York City made a total of 59,451 marijuana possession
arrests in 2010, or 163 per day). Los Angeles County, CA, made over 15,600 such arrests
and Harris County, TX (includes Houston), almost 12,000. See Table 3.
TABLE 3

Counties with Highest Numbers of Marijuana Possession Arrests (2010)

Number of Arrests for Marijuana Possession
County-State
Cook, IL
Kings, NY
Bronx, NY
Los Angeles, CA
Harris, TX
New York, NY
Queens, NY
Maricopa, AZ
Miami-Dade, FL
Bexar, TX
Fulton, GA
Clark, NV
Baltimore City, MD
San Diego, CA
Orange, CA
Broward, FL
Philadelphia, PA
D.C.
Erie, NY
St. Louis, MO
Milwaukee, WI
Suffolk, NY
Orange, FL
Pima, AZ
Dallas, TX

Total

Black

White

Black % of
Arrests

33,068
20,413
16,001
15,643
11,836
11,221
9,456
9,435
9,240
8,741
7,622
7,598
7,047
6,954
6,327
6,061
5,598
5,115
4,991
4,928
4,732
4,520
4,502
4,352
4,206

24,046
12,544
6,943
3,978
5,320
4,047
3,449
1,258
5,279
1,493
6,658
2,810
6,461
1,076
285
3,617
4,590
4,648
2,425
2,556
3,103
1,260
2,294
408
2,015

8,760
1,443
497
11,549
6,387
1,596
1,135
7,786
3,935
7,234
941
4,556
555
5,761
5,967
2,413
954
467
2,516
2,346
1,588
3,237
2,168
3,744
2,150

72.7%
61.5%
43.4%
25.4%
44.9%
36.1%
36.5%
13.3%
57.1%
17.1%
87.3%
37.0%
91.7%
15.5%
4.5%
59.7%
82.0%
90.9%
48.6%
51.9%
65.6%
27.9%
51.0%
9.4%
47.9%

Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Arrests by Age, Sex, and Race and U.S. Census Data

33

See supra Mack, note 25 (discussing Chicago’s recent decriminalization of marijuana possession).

Marijuana Arrests

  43


 The counties with the highest marijuana possession arrest rates per 100,000 were
Worcester, MD (2,132),34 Kleberg, TX (1,294), Cole, MO (1,230), Bronx, NY (1,154), and
Baltimore City, MD (1,136). See Figure 8.
FIGURE 8
Counties with Highest Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates (2010)
Worcester, MD
Kleberg, TX
Cole, MO
Bronx, NY
Baltimore City, MD
Sullivan, NY
D.C.
Ulster, NY
Fulton, GA
Kings, NY
Nash, NC
Darlington, SC
Greene, NY
Ouachita, LA
Dare, NC

2,132
1,294
1,230
1,154
1,136
849
846
843
823
814
797
790
776
761
757

0

250

500

750
1,000 1,250 1,500
Arrest Rates per 100,000

1,750

2,000

2,250

NOTE: Population Size > 30,000 and Black Population Percentage Share > 2%

Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data

34
One possible explanation for the conspicuously high arrest rate in Worcester County, even relative to the other counties with
the highest total marijuana possession arrest rates, is its encompassment of Ocean City. Ocean City is a beachside community with
a year-round population of less than 10,000, but it is a popular tourist destination that receives hundreds of thousands of vacationers
over the summer, and up to 8 million visitors annually. This constant population influx may increase the number of people who possess
marijuana in Worcester County and/or increase the police enforcement of marijuana laws during those heavy population influxes.

44

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 The counties with the largest increases in marijuana possession arrest rates between
2001 and 2010 include Miami and Manatee, FL, Vanderburgh, IN (includes Evansville),
and Hancock and Kanawha (includes Charleston), WV. See Table 4.
TABLE 4
Counties with Largest Percent Increases in Marijuana Possession Arrest
Rates (2001-2010)
Arrest Rates per 100,000
County-State
Hancock, WV
Fairfax, VA
Cole, MO
Vanderburgh, IN
Douglas, KS
DeKalb, GA
Curry, NM
Buchanan, MO
Avoyelles, LA
Charlottesville City, VA
Kanawha, WV
Roanoke City, VA
Ouachita, LA
Dunklin, MO
St. Louis, MO

Total Arrest Rate
(2001)

Total Arrest Rate
(2010)

% Change in Total
Arrest Rate

4.7
18.5
160.0
56.7
25.0
41.2
22.4
83.2
44.4
8.7
91.3
123.5
193.0
63.0
129.2

112.9
198.9
1,230.0
399.0
170.5
230.3
120.8
439.7
232.2
41.4
398.5
523.5
760.5
243.4
493.4

2,319.5%
976.4%
668.7%
603.9%
583.5%
459.5%
438.3%
428.4%
422.8%
373.5%
336.4%
324.0%
294.0%
286.7%
282.0%

NOTE: Population Size > 30,000 and Black Population Percentage > 2%
Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Arrests by Age, Sex, and Race and U.S. Census Data

Marijuana Arrests

  45


 Of larger counties (counties with populations of 200,000 or greater), those with the highest
percentage increases in marijuana possession arrest rates between 2001 and 2010 include
DeKalb, GA (includes Decatur and part of Atlanta), St. Louis City, MO, Washoe, NV (includes
Reno), Davidson, TN (includes Nashville), Erie, NY (includes Buffalo), Charleston, SC, MiamiDade, FL, Milwaukee, WI, and Wayne, MI (includes Detroit). See Table 5.
TABLE 5
Large Counties with Largest Percent Increases in Marijuana Possession
Arrest Rates (2001-2010)
Arrest Rates per 100,000
County-State
Fairfax, VA
DeKalb, GA
St. Louis, MO
Franklin, OH
Washoe, NV
Kalamazoo, MI
Davidson, TN
Erie, NY
Charleston, SC
Winnebago, IL
Miami-Dade, FL
Milwaukee, WI
Manatee, FL
Bernalillo, NM
Wayne, MI

Total Arrest Rate
(2001)

Total Arrest Rate
(2010)

% Change in Total
Arrest Rate

18.5
41.2
129.2
65.3
60.7
71.5
203.3
205.3
317.5
185.5
170.2
233.6
193.0
10.7
113.5

198.9
230.3
493.4
247.9
226.9
265.0
585.5
543.2
710.8
402.9
369.2
498.8
401.6
22.2
229.2

976.4%
459.5%
282.0%
279.5%
274.0%
270.8%
188.0%
164.6%
123.9%
117.2%
116.9%
113.6%
108.1%
106.8%
102.0%

NOTE: Population Size > 200,000 and Black Population Percentage > 2%
Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Arrests by Age, Sex, and Race and U.S. Census Data

46

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 B. Significant

Racial Disparities Exist in
Marijuana Possession Arrests Across
the Country
i. National Data
Enormous disparities exist in states and counties nationwide between arrest rates of
Blacks and whites for marijuana possession. Nationally, Blacks are 3.73 times more
likely than whites to be arrested for marijuana possession. The Black arrest rate is 716
per 100,000; the white arrest rate is 192 per 100,000 (the national arrest rate is 256 per
100,000). See Figure 9.

FIGURE 9
National Racial Disparity in Arrest Rates for Marijuana Possession (2010)
900
800

716

700
600
500
400
300
200

192

100
0

Black Arrest Rate
White Arrest Rate
Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data

Marijuana Arrests

  47


 While there were pronounced racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests 10 years
ago, the disparities have increased 32.7% between 2001 and 2010. In fact, while the
white arrest rate has remained constant at around 192 per 100,000, the Black arrest rate
has gone from 537 per 100,000 in 2001 (and 521 per 100,000 in 2002) to 716 per 100,000
in 2010. Hence, it appears that the increase in marijuana possession arrest rates overall
is largely a result of an increase in arrests of Blacks. See Figure 10.

FIGURE 10
Arrest Rates for Marijuana Possession by Race (2001-2010)

Arrest Rates per 100,000

800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

2001

2002

2003

White Arrest Rate

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Black Arrest Rate

Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data

ii. State Data
In Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, and the District of Columbia, Blacks are almost eight times
more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites. In Wisconsin, Kentucky,
and Pennsylvania, a Black person is over five times more likely to be arrested than a
white person for marijuana possession. In over one-third of the states, Blacks are more
than four times as likely to be arrested. See Table 6.

48

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 TABLE 6
States with Largest Racial Disparities in Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates
(2010)
Arrest Rates per 100,000
State

Iowa
D.C.
Minnesota
Illinois
Wisconsin
Kentucky
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Nebraska
New York
Nevada
North Dakota
Kansas
Alabama
Vermont

Total

Black

White

Times More
Likely Blacks
Arrested

211
846
144
389
281
162
167
249
417
535
341
183
181
115
119

1,454
1,489
835
1,526
1,285
697
606
943
1,699
1,192
1,272
732
688
277
514

174
185
107
202
215
117
117
197
365
263
284
166
156
64
118

8.34
8.05
7.81
7.56
5.98
5.95
5.19
4.79
4.65
4.52
4.47
4.41
4.41
4.35
4.35

Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Arrests by Age, Sex, and Race and U.S. Census Data

Comparing white and Black arrest rates directly, the data show that in Iowa the white
arrest rate is 174 per 100,000, and the Black arrest rate is 1,454 per 100,000. In the
District of Columbia, 185 whites per 100,000 are arrested versus 1,489 Blacks per
100,000. In Minnesota, the arrest rate is 107 for whites, 835 for Blacks; in Illinois, 202
for whites, 1,526 for Blacks; and in Kentucky, 117 whites as compared to 697 Blacks.
These startling disparities continue down the list of states. Even at the “other end” of the
spectrum, the disparities persist. In Oregon, for example, the state with the fifth lowest
disparity, Blacks are still more than twice as likely to be arrested; the arrest rate for
whites is 271, and for Blacks it is 563. See Appendix A, Table A5.35
Racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests are widespread and exist in every
region in the country. In the Northeast and Midwest, Blacks are over four times more

35

See supra text accompanying note 29 (discussing Alaska and Hawaii’s Black-white arrest ratios).

Marijuana Arrests

  49


 likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites. In the South, they are over
three times more likely, and in the West, twice more likely.36 See Figure 11.

FIGURE 11
Arrest Rates for Marijuana Possession by Race and Region (2010)

Arrest Rates per 100,000

800

600

400

200

0

Northeast
White Arrest Rate

Midwest

South

West

Black Arrest Rate

Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data

Perhaps the data that best captures the ubiquity of racial disparities in marijuana
possession arrests in the United States is that in 96.1% of the 945 counties that this
report examined when looking at county data only (representing 78% of the total United
States population),37 Blacks are more likely than whites to be arrested for marijuana
possession. Stated another way, in only 3.9% of the 945 counties with at least 30,000
residents and where Blacks make up at least 2% of the population is the white arrest
rate for marijuana possession higher than the Black arrest rate.38

36
The U.S. Census Bureau defines these four geographical regions of the country according to the following groupings of states

(plus the District of Columbia): Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,

Rhode Island, Vermont; Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South

Dakota, Wisconsin; South: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,

Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia; and West: Alaska, Arizona, California,

Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming.

37
As previously stated, when reporting the national and state data regarding marijuana possession arrests, this report considers all

3,143 counties and 100% of the population of the United States. See supra text accompanying note 26.

38
Further, as discussed on pp. 31-32 of the report, given that the FBI/UCR categorizes most arrests of Latinos as “white” arrests,

it may well be that the actual arrest rates of whites in some of these counties is, in fact, smaller than the Black arrest rates. Indeed, of

almost one-quarter of the 37 counties with higher arrest rates of whites for marijuana possession, the Latino population is above the

national average. If a percentage of these counties’ “white” arrests as categorized by the FBI/UCR are, in fact, arrests of Latinos, and

if the arrest rates for Latinos in these counties are higher than the arrest rates for whites, then Blacks in these counties may be more

likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites.


50

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 This startling statistic is illustrated in Figure 12. Not only do racial disparities in
marijuana possession arrests exist in almost every county in the United States, but
the racial disparity in a sizable proportion of these counties lies between two and five
(in other words, Blacks are between two and five times more likely than whites to be
arrested for marijuana possession in the majority of counties),39 and in a significant
number of other counties, as noted elsewhere in the report, this racial disparity is even
larger.

FIGURE 12

0

25

Number of Counties
50
75 100 125

150

Distribution of Racial Disparity in Marijuana Possession Arrests
(2010)

0

1

2

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Times More Likely Blacks Arrested Than Whites

10

NOTE: Population Size > 30,000 and Black Population Percentage Share > 2%

Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data

39
As indicated at the outset of the report, when examining the national data, which considers every county in the United States and
thus 100% of the population, the total arrest rate for marijuana possession is 256, the white arrest rate is 192, and the Black arrest rate
is 716. But when examining the data for the 945 counties with more than 30,000 residents and Black populations of over 2%, which cover
78% of the United States’ population, the white arrest rate drops slightly to 189 while the Black arrest rate rises to 739 (the total arrest
rate is 269). In other words, the racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests increases to 3.9.

Marijuana Arrests

  51


 In 38 states and the District of Columbia, the racial disparities in marijuana possession
arrests increased between 2001 and 2010. See Table 7. The jurisdictions with the
greatest percentage increases in racial disparities in marijuana possession arrest
rates over the past 10 years were Alaska (384%), Minnesota (231%), Wisconsin (153%),
Michigan (149%), and Kentucky (146%).40
TABLE 7
States with Largest Percent Increases in Racial Disparities in Marijuana
Possession Arrest Rates (2001-2010)
Racial Disparity
State
Alaska
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Michigan
Kentucky
Tennessee
Ohio
D.C.
Massachusetts
Georgia
Mississippi
Alabama
South Carolina
Connecticut
Arkansas

Times More Likely
Blacks Arrested (2001)

Times More Likely
Blacks Arrested (2010)

% Change in Racial
Disparity

0.3
2.4
2.4
1.3
2.4
1.8
1.9
4.6
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.6
1.8
2.2
2.0

1.6
7.8
6.0
3.3
6.0
4.0
4.1
8.0
3.9
3.7
3.9
4.4
2.8
3.3
3.1

384.1%
231.0%
153.0%
149.3%
145.8%
121.7%
118.1%
76.8%
75.4%
71.0%
68.9%
67.1%
57.4%
53.7%
53.5%

Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Arrests by Age, Sex, and Race and U.S. Census Data

40
The states with the greatest decreases in racial disparities in marijuana arrest rates were Nebraska (-51%), Colorado (-38%),
Montana (-34%), California (-11%), and South Dakota (-10%). See Appendix A, Table A6. Note that although Massachusetts reduced
its overall marijuana possession arrests by 86% after decriminalizing adult marijuana possession of an ounce or less in 2008, the
racial disparity in arrest rates still increased: it was 3.42 in 2008 (before decriminalization), went up 56.1% to 5.34 in 2009 (after
decriminalization), and then fell to 3.87 in 2010 (though still a 13.1% increase from 2008). Overall, the disparity increased 75% between
2001 and 2010.

52

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 The states that made the highest numbers of arrests of Blacks for marijuana possession
in 2010 were New York (40,326), Illinois (29,083), Florida (26,711), Georgia (20,765), and
Texas (19,164). See Appendix A, Table A1. The states (including the District of Columbia)
with the highest Black arrest rates per 100,000 for marijuana possession are Nebraska
(1,699), Illinois (1,526), the District of Columbia (1,489), Iowa (1,454), and Wisconsin
(1,285). See Figure 13. When compared to the combined white arrest rate in those states
(215), not to mention the marijuana possession arrest rate for whites nationally (192),
or even the national marijuana possession arrest rate for Blacks (716), the Black arrest
rates for marijuana possession in these states is, simply, astronomical.

FIGURE 13
States with Highest Black Arrest Rates for Marijuana Possession (2010)
Nebraska

1,699

Illinois

1,526

D.C.

1,489

Iowa

1,454

Wisconsin

1,285

Nevada

1,272

Wyoming

1,223

New York

1,192

South Dakota

943

Florida

866

0

200

400

600

800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Arrest Rates per 100,000
Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data

1,600

1,800

Of marijuana possession arrests in the District of Columbia, a staggering 91% were
of Blacks. In Mississippi, 69% of marijuana possession arrests were of Blacks. In
Georgia and Louisiana, 64% and 61% of marijuana possession arrests were of Blacks,
respectively. See Table 8.

Marijuana Arrests

  53


 TABLE 8
Differences in Black Percentage of Population and Marijuana Possession
Arrests by State (2010)
State Percentages
State
Illinois
D.C.
Alabama
Mississippi
Georgia
Florida
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Louisiana
North Carolina
Maryland
Kentucky
Minnesota
Delaware
Ohio
South Carolina
Virginia
Nevada
Wisconsin
Michigan
Arkansas
New York
New Jersey
Connecticut
Iowa
Massachusetts
Indiana
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Texas
Oklahoma
Rhode Island
California
West Virginia
Washington
Arizona
South Dakota
Colorado
North Dakota
Vermont
Utah
Alaska
Oregon
New Mexico
Wyoming
New Hampshire
Maine
Idaho
Hawaii
Montana

Black % of Population

Black % of Arrests

Difference

14.9%
51.6%
24.8%
36.3%
30.9%
16.4%
11.3%
16.8%
32.0%
22.0%
30.0%
8.2%
5.4%
21.9%
12.6%
28.2%
19.8%
8.6%
6.5%
14.3%
15.5%
17.4%
14.6%
11.0%
3.1%
7.7%
9.8%
6.2%
11.7%
4.8%
12.2%
7.6%
7.1%
6.7%
3.5%
3.8%
4.4%
1.5%
4.3%
1.3%
1.0%
1.2%
3.6%
1.9%
2.5%
0.9%
1.2%
1.2%
0.7%
1.6%
0.4%

58.3%
90.9%
59.7%
69.4%
63.9%
46.1%
40.8%
45.8%
60.8%
50.0%
57.9%
35.6%
31.3%
47.7%
38.1%
53.3%
43.4%
32.1%
29.6%
36.9%
37.2%
38.9%
35.1%
30.3%
21.7%
25.9%
27.6%
23.7%
26.7%
19.7%
25.8%
20.8%
17.5%
16.3%
10.8%
10.7%
10.4%
5.5%
8.3%
5.2%
4.5%
4.7%
6.1%
4.3%
4.8%
3.0%
3.3%
2.6%
2.0%
2.8%
1.5%

43.4%
39.3%
34.8%
33.1%
33.1%
29.7%
29.6%
28.9%
28.8%
28.0%
27.9%
27.3%
25.9%
25.8%
25.6%
25.1%
23.7%
23.5%
23.1%
22.5%
21.8%
21.4%
20.5%
19.3%
18.5%
18.2%
17.8%
17.5%
15.0%
14.8%
13.6%
13.2%
10.3%
9.6%
7.3%
6.9%
6.0%
4.1%
4.0%
3.9%
3.5%
3.4%
2.5%
2.3%
2.3%
2.1%
2.1%
1.4%
1.3%
1.1%
1.1%

Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Arrests by Age, Sex, and Race and U.S. Census Data

54

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White

 Indeed, examining the state-by-state differences between Black percentages of the
population and Black percentages of marijuana possession arrests, in every state the
Black arrest rate is disproportionate to Blacks’ percentage of the population. See Table
8. In fact, in 42 states the Black percentage of marijuana possession arrests is more
than double the Black percentage of the population, while in 18 states Blacks account
for more than three times the percentage of marijuana possession arrests than they do
of the population. In four states, the difference is a factor of at least four.
In Illinois, for instance, Blacks are 15% of the population, but account for 58% of
marijuana possession arrests. In the District of Columbia, Blacks are just over half
the population, but account for more than nine out of every ten marijuana possession
arrests. In Alabama, 60% of the marijuana possession arrests are of Blacks, yet
Blacks account for less than 25% of the population. In Kentucky and Minnesota, Blacks
represent only 8% and 5% of the respective states, but 36% and 31% of the marijuana
possession arrests. Similarly, in Iowa, the percentage of Blacks arrested for marijuana
possession is seven times greater than their percentage of the state population.

Marijuana Arrests

  55


 iii. County Data
The counties that arrested the highest numbers of Blacks for marijuana possession in
2010 were Cook, IL (includes Chicago41)(24,046), Kings, NY (Brooklyn) (12,544), Bronx, NY
(6,943), Fulton, GA (includes Atlanta) (6,658), and Baltimore City, MD (6,461). See Table 9.
TABLE 9
Counties with Highest Numbers of Black Arrests for Marijuana Possession
(2010)
Number of Arrests for Marijuana Possession
County-State
Cook, IL
Kings, NY
Bronx, NY
Fulton, GA
Baltimore City, MD
Harris, TX
Miami-Dade, FL
D.C.
Philadelphia, PA
New York, NY
Los Angeles, CA
Broward, FL
Queens, NY
Shelby, TN
Milwaukee, WI
Clark, NV
St. Louis, MO
Wayne, MI
Erie, NY
Orange, FL
Davidson, TN
Cuyahoga, OH
Prince George’s, MD
Dallas, TX
Hillsborough, FL

Black

White

Total

Black % of
Arrests

24,046
12,544
6,943
6,658
6,461
5,320
5,279
4,648
4,590
4,047
3,978
3,617
3,449
3,311
3,103
2,810
2,556
2,448
2,425
2,294
2,267
2,155
2,043
2,015
2,012

8,760
1,443
497
941
555
6,387
3,935
467
954
1,596
11,549
2,413
1,135
652
1,588
4,556
2,346
1,702
2,516
2,168
1,384
756
334
2,150
2,006

33,068
20,413
16,001
7,622
7,047
11,836
9,240
5,115
5,598
11,221
15,643
6,061
9,456
3,978
4,732
7,598
4,928
4,160
4,991
4,502
3,677
2,916
2,396
4,206
4,049

72.7%
61.5%
43.4%
87.3%
91.7%
44.9%
57.1%
90.9%
82.0%
36.1%
25.4%
59.7%
36.5%
83.2%
65.6%
37.0%
51.9%
58.9%
48.6%
51.0%
61.7%
73.9%
85.3%
47.9%
49.7%

Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Arrests by Age, Sex, and Race and U.S. Census Data

41

See supra Mack, note 25 (discussing Chicago’s recent decriminalization of marijuana).

56

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 Figure 14 shows the counties with the highest Black arrest rates for marijuana
possession. These counties are spread throughout the country, from Kenton, KY, to
Worcester, MD; from Dare, NC, to Livingston and Montgomery, IL; from Broome and
Chautauqua, NY, to Kleberg, Hopkins, and Van Zandt, TX. In all of these counties, the
Black arrest rate is over 1,000 — the national arrest rate for marijuana possession for
all races is 256 — and is equal to or greater than a staggering 3,000 in Campbell, KY
(adjacent to Cincinnati, OH), Chambers (approximately 30 miles east of Houston) and
Cooke (approximately 50 miles north of Dallas), TX, Worcester, MD, and Onandaga, NY
(includes Syracuse). In none of these counties is the white arrest rate for marijuana
possession — though quite high in many of them — similar to the Black arrest rate.

FIGURE 14
Counties with Highest Black Arrest Rates for Marijuana Possession (2010)
Campbell, KY
Chambers, TX
Worcester, MD
Cooke, TX
Onondaga, NY
Dare, NC
Kleberg, TX
Livingston, IL
Hopkins, TX
Chautauqua, NY
Lafayette, MO
Montgomery, IL
Van Zandt, TX
Broome, NY
Kenton, KY
0

1,000

2,000
3,000
4,000
Arrest Rate per 100,000

White Arrest Rate

5,000

6,000

Black Arrest Rate

NOTE: Population Size > 30,000 and Black Population Percentage Share > 2%

Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data

Table 10 shows the counties with the greatest racial disparities in marijuana possession
arrests.42 As the data presented reveals, the counties with the greatest racial disparities
in arrest rates are not necessarily in the states that have the greatest racial disparities
in arrest rates. For instance, in Missouri, Blacks are on average over 2.5 times more
likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites, but the ratio of white to
42
It is important to note that in three counties in the United States, all in Alabama — Dallas (which has a Black arrest rate of 95 per
100,000), Morgan (Black arrest rate of 55), and Pike (Black arrest rate of 115) — the number of white arrests in 2010 was zero. Given
that this report defines racial disparity (i.e., the ratio of Black arrests rates to white arrest rates) by dividing the Black arrest rate by the
white arrest rate, in these three counties the rate at which Blacks are arrested as compared to whites is an infinite number. Therefore,
because we do not have a precise ratio to report, these three counties are not represented in Table 10. However, they should still be
included among the counties nationwide with the largest racial disparities in arrest rates for marijuana possession.

Marijuana Arrests

  57


 Black marijuana possession arrests in St. Louis City, MO, is 18.4. In Georgia, statewide
disparity is over 3.5, but in Gordon County, Georgia, the ratio is 14.1, or 136 white arrests
per 100,000 as compared to 1,921 Blacks per 100,000. In Ohio, Blacks are over four
times more likely than whites to be arrested for marijuana possession; in Allen County,
OH, Blacks are 13.2 times more likely. In Van Zandt and Cooke County, TX (each located
approximately 50 miles from Dallas, TX), Blacks are 34 times and 25 times more likely
to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites, respectively, while the disparity
statewide is 2.33. Blacks are over 4.5 times more likely to be arrested than whites for
marijuana possession in New York State; but in Kings (Brooklyn), NY, Blacks are 9.68
times more likely (161 whites per 100,000 compared to 1,554 Blacks per 100,000).
TABLE 10
Counties with Largest Racial Disparities in Marijuana Possession Arrest
Rates (2010)
Arrest Rates per 100,000
County-State

Van Zandt, TX
Nelson, KY
Coffee, AL
Cooke, TX
St. Louis City, MO*
Monroe, MI
Gordon, GA
Columbiana, OH
Chambers, AL
Allen, OH
Campbell, KY
Tangipahoa, LA
Lawrence, PA
Barnstable, MA
St. Landry, LA
Plymouth, MA
St. Clair, MI
Monroe, TN
Dubuque, IA
Kenton, KY
Sarasota, FL
Lycoming, PA
Martin, FL
Kings, NY
Hoke, NC

Demographics

Times More
Likely
Blacks
Arrested

Black

White

Population

% Black

34.1
32.1
25.7
24.7
18.4
15.4
14.1
13.8
13.7
13.2
12.2
11.8
11.2
11.0
10.7
10.5
10.1
10.1
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.8
9.7
9.6

2,403
324
198
3,029
51
710
1,921
161
121
1,370
5,686
586
858
194
758
63
1,041
501
1,816
2,348
1,199
1,098
1,497
1,369
81

71
10
8
123
3
46
136
12
9
104
465
50
77
18
71
6
103
50
181
235
120
110
152
116
8

52,661
43,576
50,167
38,438
319,008
151,964
55,191
107,851
34,143
106,239
90,534
121,460
90,975
215,988
83,503
495,731
162,730
44,584
93,888
159,897
380,043
116,177
146,488
2,508,515
47,506

2.8%
5.1%
17.0%
2.9%
49.5%
2.2%
3.8%
2.3%
39.0%
12.1%
2.6%
30.4%
3.9%
2.2%
41.7%
9.0%
2.5%
2.2%
2.7%
4.7%
4.9%
4.6%
5.5%
36.5%
34.1%

∗

For St. Louis City, in 2007, 2008, and 2009, respectively, the Black arrest rate was 376, 345, and 316 and the
white arrest rate was 46, 25, and 32. The sharp drop-off in arrest rates for whites and Blacks in 2010 is likely
attributed to reporting error.
NOTE: Population Size > 30,000 and Black Population Percentage Share > 2%
Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Arrests by Age, Sex, and Race and U.S. Census Data

58

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 As Table 10 shows, significant arrest disparities exist in counties across the country
irrespective of the counties’ overall Black populations. For example, in Lycoming
(includes Williamsport) and Lawrence (includes New Castle), PA, as in Kenton County
(includes Covington), KY, Blacks make up less than 5% of the population, but are
between 10 and 11 times more likely than whites to be arrested. In Kings (Brooklyn), NY,
and St. Louis City, MO, Blacks comprise 37% and 50% of the residents, respectively, and
are 12 and 18 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites,
respectively.
Figure 15 below shows the counties where Blacks account for the highest percentages
of marijuana possession arrests — over 80% in each county. Data from Alabama is
particularly stark: in Morgan County, AL, Blacks make up just over 10% of the
population, and in Pike County, AL, Blacks make up less than 40% of the population, yet
they account for 100% of all marijuana possession arrests; meanwhile, in Chambers, AL,
Blacks account for less than 40% of the population, but 90% of the marijuana possession
arrests. In St. Landry, LA, Blacks account for twice as many marijuana arrests (almost
89%) as they do the overall population (42%).

FIGURE 15
Counties with Highest Black Percentages of Marijuana Possession Arrests (2010)
Pike, AL
Morgan, AL
Dallas, AL
St. Louis City, MO
Hinds, MS
Baltimore City, MD
D.C.
Petersburg City, VA
Chambers, AL
DeKalb, GA
Dougherty, GA
St. Landry, LA
Leflore, MS
Fulton, GA
Jefferson, AR
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Black Percentage of Census Population
Black Percentage of Marijuana Possession Arrests
NOTE: Population Size > 30,000

Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data

Marijuana Arrests

  59


 In each of the 25 most populous counties in the United States, the Black arrest rate for
marijuana possession exceeds the white arrest rate, further evidence of the pervasiveness
of racial disparities throughout the country. See Figure 16. The most populous counties
with the greatest racial disparities in marijuana possession arrest rates are Kings County
(Brooklyn), NY (where Blacks are 9.7 times more likely to be arrested than whites), New York
County (Manhattan), NY (9.4 times more likely), Cook County (Chicago), IL (7.2 times more
likely), Miami-Dade County, FL (5.4 times more likely), Philadelphia County, PA (5 times
more likely), Queens County, NY (4.6 times more likely), Suffolk County (part of Long Island)
NY (4.2 times more likely), and Clark County (includes Las Vegas), NV (4.1 times more likely).
Notably, in each of these 25 counties, the percentage of marijuana arrests that are of Blacks
also significantly exceeds the Black percentage of those counties’ populations.

FIGURE 16
Racial Disparities in Marijuana Possession Arrests in the 25 Most
Populous Counties in U.S. (2010)
Los Angeles, CA
Cook, IL
Harris, TX
Maricopa, AZ
San Diego, CA
Orange, CA
Kings, NY
Miami-Dade, FL
Dallas, TX
Queens, NY
Riverside, CA
San Bernardino, CA
Clark, NV
King, WA
Tarrant, TX
Wayne, MI
Santa Clara, CA
Broward, FL
Bexar, TX
New York, NY
Philadelphia, PA
Alameda, CA
Middlesex, MA
Suffolk, NY
Sacramento, CA
0

250

500

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

1,750

2,000

White Arrest Rate
Black Arrest Rate
Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data

Figure 17 looks at the largest disparities between the white and Black arrest rates for
marijuana possession in counties where the overall marijuana possession arrest rate is
greater than the national average.

60

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 FIGURE 17
Largest Racial Disparities in Counties with Above-Average Marijuana Possession
Arrest Rates (2010)
Allen, OH
Campbell, KY
St. Landry, LA
Kenton, KY
Kings, NY
New York, NY
Chambers, TX
Kalamazoo, MI
Hopkins, TX
Peoria, IL
Woodbury, IA
D.C.
Kay, OK
Lafayette, MO
Johnson, IA
0

1,000

2,000

White Arrest Rate

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Black Arrest Rate

NOTE: Population Size > 30,000 and Black Population Percentage Share > 2%

Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data

Table 11 lists the counties with the largest increases in racial disparities in marijuana
possession arrests from 2001 to 2010. The largest increases range from 426.2% in Kent,
MI (includes Grand Rapids), to 1,230.8% in Monroe, TN.
TABLE 11
Counties with Largest Percent Increases in Racial Disparities in Marijuana
Possession Arrest Rates (2001-2010)
Racial Disparity
County-State

Monroe, TN
Chambers, AL
Lycoming, PA
Hoke, NC
Jefferson, AR
Madison, IN
St. Lawrence, NY
Coffee, AL
Graham, AZ
Walton, GA
McDowell, NC
Wyoming, NY
Lawrence, AL
Kalamazoo, MI
Kent, MI

Times More Likely
Blacks Arrested
(2001)

Times More Likely
Blacks Arrested
(2010)

% Change in Racial
Disparity

0.8
1.1
0.9
1.0
0.5
0.4
0.2
3.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.1
1.3
1.6
1.4

10.1
13.7
10.0
9.6
4.8
3.5
2.1
25.7
3.0
3.4
4.5
0.6
6.8
8.5
7.5

1,230.8%
1,090.6%
1,048.0%
906.4%
851.4%
834.1%
793.7%
625.5%
537.0%
528.1%
464.6%
449.3%
442.6%
429.0%
426.2%

NOTE: Population Size > 30,000 and Black Population Percentage > 2%

Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Arrests by Age, Sex, and Race and U.S. Census Data


Marijuana Arrests

  61

 Table 12 is similar to Table 11, but focuses only on larger counties (more than 200,000
people) with the largest increases in racial disparities in marijuana possession
arrests since 2001. Three of the larger counties with the greatest increases are in
Michigan: Kalamazoo, Kent (includes Grand Rapids), and Wayne (includes Detroit).
Other counties on this list include Davidson, TN (includes Nashville), Hennepin, MN
(includes Minneapolis), St. Louis City, MO, Philadelphia, PA, Bernalillo, NM (includes
Albuquerque), and Milwaukee, WI.
TABLE 12
Large Counties with Largest Percent Increases in Racial Disparities in
Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates (2001-2010)
Racial Disparity
County-State

Kalamazoo, MI
Kent, MI
Davidson, TN
Plymouth, MA
Hennepin, MN
Wayne, MI
St. Louis City, MO
Bernalillo, NM
Chatham, GA
Contra Costa, CA
Dakota, MN
Lorain, OH
Suffolk, MA
Philadelphia, PA
Milwaukee, WI

Times More Likely
Blacks Arrested
(2001)

Times More Likely
Blacks Arrested
(2010)

% Change in Racial
Disparity

1.6
1.4
0.8
2.4
2.1
0.5
6.1
1.5
1.3
1.1
2.3
1.8
2.0
2.1
2.0

8.5
7.5
3.8
10.5
9.1
1.9
18.4
3.9
3.5
2.8
5.6
4.4
4.8
4.9
4.7

429.0%
426.2%
355.6%
346.4%
328.7%
271.0%
201.2%
162.0%
157.7%
150.2%
145.9%
141.8%
135.0%
134.7%
132.5%

NOTE: Population Size > 200,000 and Black Population Percentage > 2%

Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Arrests by Age, Sex, and Race and U.S. Census Data


Racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests exist across median household
income levels. Blacks are arrested at higher rates than whites for marijuana possession
in counties with the highest, middle, and lowest median household income levels (the
disparity is greater in the counties with the middle and highest income levels).

62

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 In the 15 counties with the highest median household incomes in the United States,
Blacks are two to eight times more likely than whites to be arrested for marijuana
possession. In Arlington, VA, for example, where the median household income is
$94,880, Blacks are almost eight times more likely to be arrested for marijuana
possession than whites. In Delaware, OH (north of Columbus), where the median
household income is just under $88,000, Blacks are arrested at almost six times the rate
of whites. In Howard, Calvert, and Charles Counties in Maryland, the median household
income is between $88,825 and $103,273, and the Black marijuana possession arrest
rate is a stunning 837 per 100,000 (compared to the national rate of 253 per 100,000).
In Fairfax and Loudoun, VA, where the median household incomes are both over
$100,000, Blacks are approximately three times more likely than whites to be arrested
for marijuana possession. In Nassau, NY (part of Long Island), the median household
income is over $93,000 and Blacks are over 3.5 times more likely than whites to be
arrested for marijuana possession. See Figure 18.

FIGURE 18
Counties with Highest Median Household Incomes ($115,574-$88,825)
Loudoun, VA

Fairfax, VA

Howard, MD

Hunterdon, NJ

Somerset, NJ

Morris, NJ

Arlington, VA

Nassau, NY

Montgomery, MD

Stafford, VA

Prince William, VA

Calvert, MD

Marin, CA

Putnam, NY

Charles, MD

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

NOTE: Population Size > 30,000 and Black Population Percentage > 2%

Counties listed in descending order by Median Household Income.


Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data

Marijuana Arrests

  63


 In the counties with the middle median household incomes, see Figure 19, where the
household incomes are all in the $45,000 range, Blacks are over three times more likely
to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites. In Geary, KS, and Harrison, MS
(includes Gulfport and Biloxi), Blacks are almost five times more likely to be arrested.
In Davidson, TN (includes Nashville), Ingham, MI (includes Lansing), and Douglas, KS
(includes Lawrence), Blacks are over 3.5 times more likely to be arrested.
FIGURE 19
Counties with Middle Median Household Incomes ($45,930-$45,521)
Wayne, PA
Liberty, TX
Douglas, KS
Ector, TX
Ingham, MI
Brunswick, NC
Boone, MO
Guilford, NC
Harrison, MS
Davidson, TN
Tulsa, OK
Geary, KS
Carroll, GA
Franklin, VA
Pima, AZ
0

200

400

White Arrest Rate

600

800

1000

Black Arrest Rate

NOTE: Population Size > 30,000 and Black Population Percentage > 2%
Counties listed in descending order by Median Household Income.

Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data

64

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


1200

1400

1600

 Turning to the 15 counties with the lowest median household incomes, see Figure 20, in
Scotland, NC, and Adams, MS, where the median household income is below $30,000,
Blacks are almost five times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than
whites. In Washington, LA ($27,797), and Dunklin, MO ($29,375), Blacks are four times
more likely. In Dallas (includes Selma) and Pike, AL, both with median household incomes
below $30,000 and white populations of 31% and 61%, respectively, the white arrest rate
for marijuana possession was 0, while the Black arrest rate was 95 and 115, respectively.
In Natchitoches, LA, and Oktibbeha, MS, the median household income is approximately
$30,300, and the Black marijuana possession arrest rate is a staggering 1,201 per 100,000.

FIGURE 20
Counties with Lowest Median Household Incomes ($30,363-$22,020)
Washington, LA
Natchitoches, LA
Oktibbeha, MS
Danville City, VA
Robeson, NC
Dunklin, MO
Scotland, NC
Pike, AL
Washington, MS
Adams, MS
Dillon, SC
Dallas, AL
Bolivar, MS
Williamsburg, SC
Leflore, MS
0

200

400

White Arrest Rate

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Black Arrest Rate

NOTE: Population Size > 30,000 and Black Population Percentage > 2%
Counties listed in descending order by Median Household Income.

Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data

Marijuana Arrests

  65


 C. Blacks

and Whites Use Marijuana at
Similar Rates

Despite the pronounced disparities in arrest rates of whites and Blacks for marijuana
possession, rates of marijuana use and non-use between whites and Blacks are roughly
equal. Therefore, the wide racial disparities in marijuana possession arrest rates cannot
be explained by differences in marijuana usage rates between whites and Blacks.
Among all age groups since 2001, use by Blacks of marijuana in the past 12 months is
slightly higher than use by Whites. In 2010, for instance, 14.0% of Blacks and 11.6% of
whites reported using marijuana in the past year. In 2009, reported use of marijuana in
the past year was 12.4% for Blacks and 11.7% for whites. In 2001, 9.8% of whites and
9.3% of Blacks reported using marijuana over the past year. See Figure 21.

FIGURE 21
Marijuana Use by Race: Used Marijuana in Past 12 Months (2001-2010)
20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

2001

2002

2003

Percent White Used

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Percent Black Used

Source: National Household Survey on Drug Abuse and Health, 2001-2010

Every year between 2001 and 2010, among 18- to 25-year-olds — a group with higher
arrest rates generally than other age brackets — more whites than Blacks had used
marijuana in the previous 12 months. In 2010, for instance, among 18- to 25-year-olds,
33.4% of whites and 27.6% of Blacks reported using marijuana in the past year. See
Figure 22.

66

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 FIGURE 22
Marijuana Use Among 18- to 25-Year-Olds by Race: Used Marijuana in Past 12
Months (2001-2010)
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

2001

2002

2003

2004

Percent White Used

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Percent Black Used

Source: National Household Survey on Drug Abuse and Health, 2001-2010

In terms of non-use of marijuana, 59.3% of Blacks and 54.1% of whites in 2010 reported
having never used marijuana. In fact, in every year between 2001 and 2010, more Blacks
than whites reported having never used marijuana. See Figure 23.

FIGURE 23
Marijuana Use by Race: Never Used Marijuana (2001-2010)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

2001

2002

2003

2004

Percent White Never Used

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Percent Black Never Used

Source: National Household Survey on Drug Abuse and Health, 2001-2010

Marijuana Arrests

  67


 V.

FISCAL COST ANALYSIS

This section calculates three estimates of the annual fiscal costs of marijuana possession
arrests in the United States, denoted as: (1) Low Estimate, (2) Middle Estimate, and (3)
High Estimate. For the reasons provided below, we believe that the Middle Estimate is the
best estimate of the true annual fiscal cost of marijuana possession enforcement.43
It should be noted that the economic analyses of the fiscal cost of marijuana possession
enforcement in this report are almost certainly conservative estimates, to the extent that
we do not include downstream factors in our analysis (e.g., additional costs incurred
beyond the justice system, such as reduction in labor force, reduction in tax revenue,
educational disparities leading to under-employment in already economically depressed
neighborhoods, and so forth). Rather, the report focuses only on direct enforcement
costs.

A.

Estimates

i.

High Estimate

To calculate the High Estimate, this report largely follows the methodology employed
by Professor Jeffrey A. Miron in his analysis of the fiscal impact of decriminalization.44
Professor Miron’s basic approach consists of prorating historical criminal justice system
43
As an initial matter, all three estimates represent a summation of 2010 expenditures, and are not the products of an empirical
comparison of jurisdictions where marijuana possession is legal with jurisdictions where marijuana possession is illegal. See, e.g.,
Jerome Adda, Brendon McConnell & Imran Rasul, Crime and the Depenalization of Cannabis Possession: Evidence from a Policing
Experiment 15 (Working Paper, 2011), available at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctpimr/research/depenalization.pdf. Moreover, although some
criminologists have suggested that reducing the number of marijuana possession arrests may not reduce total fiscal expenditures
(e.g., due to the redirection of resources from marijuana possession enforcement to other lower-level offenses, such as traffic
violations, trespassing, loitering, etc.), such policy choices are separate from a determination of what is presently spent by state
and local governments on marijuana possession enforcement in this country. This prorating approach plays an important role in the
policy discussions surrounding marijuana legalization, and this section continues that tradition. In addition, it is important to note that
the estimates provided in this section consider only the budgetary or fiscal impact of enforcing criminal laws or statutes prohibiting
marijuana possession, and do not in any way seek to account for the broader costs and benefits to society that would follow were state
and local agencies to put these resources to other uses, nor do the estimates contemplate the positive fiscal impact of tax revenues
generated by wholesale legalization or commercialization. Further, no consideration is made for the indirect effects of legalization,
such as any cross-substitution effects of marijuana legalization (i.e., reduction in consumption demand for other goods such as
alcohol or cigarettes, arising from changes in the availability of marijuana), primarily because such effects are extremely difficult to
quantify or measure with any accuracy or precision. See, e.g., JONATHAN P. CAULKINS, ANGELA HAWKEN, BEAU KILMER & MARK A. R. KLEIMAN,
MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION: WHAT EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW 133-34 (2012) (noting that if the cross-price elasticity between alcohol and marijuana
consumption is even just slightly negative, then the costs of increased marijuana use resulting from decriminalization may be offset by
the benefits flowing from a corresponding decrease in alcohol abuse and dependence, which impose far greater costs upon society).
44
See MIRON & WALDOCK, BUDGETARY IMPACT, supra note 23, at 1; JEFFREY A. MIRON, MARIJUANA POLICY PROJECT, THE BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS OF
MARIJUANA PROHIBITION (2005) [hereinafter MIRON, BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS], available at http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/mironreport/; see
generally Jeffrey A. Miron & Jeffrey Zweibel, The Economic Case Against Drug Prohibition, 9 J. ECON. PERSP. 175 (1995).

68

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 expenditures, where these expenditures are broken down into three distinct
components: (1) police expenditures, (2) judicial and legal services expenditures, and (3)
corrections expenditures.45
To start, the fiscal cost of police expenditures on marijuana possession arrests is
estimated as the total budget for policing services multiplied by the percentage share of
total arrests accounted for by marijuana possession.46 An adjustment is made, however,
for the fact that some marijuana possession arrests are made incidental to other
enforcement actions. Specifically, as described in the Methodology section, individuals
can be arrested for multiple offenses as a consequence of a single enforcement action.
For example, if the police arrest an individual for a traffic violation and a small amount
of marijuana is subsequently found within the vehicle, then the enforcement action is
generally coded as both a marijuana possession arrest and a traffic violation, even if
the police would have taken the enforcement action were marijuana possession legal.
To adjust for this, following Professor Miron, this report assumes for all fiscal cost
estimates that only 50% of all marijuana possession offenses are “stand-alone” offenses
such that the total number of marijuana possession arrests is equal to 50% of the total
number of recorded arrests for marijuana possession.47
To calculate the adjudication costs of arrests for marijuana possession, Professor Miron
multiplies the total judicial and legal expenditures by the percentage of marijuanarelated proceedings in state courts resulting in felony convictions, using, in particular,
a national fraction of 10.9% because state-level data are not available.48 This report
estimates adjudication costs slightly differently. Available state data suggest that
marijuana possession’s percentage share of total state cases is approximately two times
as large as the percentage share of total arrests accounted for by marijuana possession.
Thus, to calculate the adjudication costs of arrests for marijuana possession, this report
45
This methodology has been used in a number of reports examining the fiscal impact of marijuana decriminalization. See e.g.,
JON B. GETTMAN, NAT’L ORG. FOR THE REFORM OF MARIJUANA L., CRIMES OF INDISCRETION: THE NATURE, EXTENT, AND COSTS OF MARIJUANA ARRESTS IN THE

UNITED STATES (2004), available at http://norml.org/pdf_files/NORML_Crimes_of_Indiscretion.pdf; Ryan King & Marc Mauer, The War on 

Marijuana: The Transformation of the War on Drugs in the 1990s, 3 HARM REDUCT. J. 6 (2006), available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/

articles/PMC1420279/. A proportionate cost model has also been adopted by the federal Office of National Drug Control Policy on the

Economic Costs of Drug Abuse. See generally OFFICE OF NAT’L DRUG CONTROL POL’Y, THE ECONOMIC COSTS OF DRUG ABUSE IN THE UNITED STATES, 

1992-2002 (2004), available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/economic_costs.pdf.

46
There at two concerns here. First, not all arrests are equally burdensome on police (e.g., some arrests may require greater

investigative effort). Miron’s methodology assumes that average costs equal marginal costs, which implies that law enforcement is a

constant cost industry (i.e., that increased dollars spent on law enforcement result in approximately the same increase in the number of

arrests). Second, police do more than simply arrest individuals (i.e., there is evidence that only one-third of enforcement expenditure is

properly allocated to arrests). This concern is mitigated to some extent by the fact that the costs of other non-enforcement activities are

relatively low compared to the overall costs of enforcement.

47
See MIRON, BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS, supra note 44, at 6 (“There are few hard data on the fraction of ‘stand alone’ possession arrests,

but the information in Miron (2002) and Reuter, Hirshfield and Davies (2001) suggests it is between 33% and 85%.”). In our view, the 50%

figure likely underestimates the total number of arrests for marijuana possession.

48
There are at least three concerns here: (1) not all convictions are equally burdensome on the judiciary (e.g., felony offenses

consume more judicial resources than misdemeanor offenses); (2) most marijuana charges are classified as misdemeanors or lower;

and (3) the judiciary is responsible for more than simply adjudicating criminal cases.


Fiscal Costs Analysis

  69


 multiplies the total judicial and legal expenditures by two times marijuana possession
arrests’ percentage share of total arrests.49
Finally, to estimate the corrections costs associated with marijuana possession
convictions, fiscal expenditures on local jail and county correctional facilities (but not
state prison facilities) are multiplied by the ratio of stand-alone arrests for marijuana
possession arrests to total arrests.50 In his analysis, Professor Miron estimates
corrections costs as equal to 1% of total corrections expenditures, including state prison
facilities, where 1% corresponds to the weighted average of the proportion of prisoners
incarcerated on marijuana charges in five states.51 Our departure from Professor Miron’s
methodology is motivated by the fact that the aim of this fiscal cost analysis is to provide
an estimate of marijuana possession offenses only, and not of all marijuana offenses.
Specifically, our fiscal analysis does not consider offenses for the sale and/or
manufacture of marijuana that are more likely to result in a felony charge and, in turn,
to constitute the majority of the estimated 1% of the prison population serving time
solely on a marijuana charge.52 To account for this difference, our fiscal analysis ignores
entirely all fiscal spending on state correctional facilities and considers only fiscal
expenditures on local jail and county correctional facilities and other services.53
In our view, Professor Miron’s approach yields a plausible upper bound on the annual
fiscal costs of marijuana possession enforcement for the country as a whole. In

49
The factor of two is consistent with other studies that examine state-level data. See, e.g., STIFFLER, supra note 20, at 9. Note
that because under Miron’s approach only 50% of all marijuana possession arrests are considered “stand-alone,” this calculation is
equivalent to simply multiplying marijuana possession’s percentage share of total arrests by total judicial and legal expenditures.
50
Here, “local jail and county correctional facilities” corresponds to confinement in a local correctional facility while pending trial,
awaiting sentencing, serving a sentence of less than one year, or awaiting transfer to other facilities after conviction. “Prison facilities,”
by contrast, corresponds to confinement in a state correctional facility to serve a sentence of more than one year, but this varies in
certain jurisdictions. Six states have unified prison systems, meaning that there is an integrated state-level prison and jail system:
Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. For these six states, the local correction expenditure was calculated
as 30% of total reported corrections expenditures. The 30% number is calculated as local correction expenditure’s percentage share of
total correction expenditure averaged over the remaining 44 states with non-unified prison systems.
51
The five states are California, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, and New Hampshire. See MIRON, BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS, supra
note 44, at tbl.A1.
52
According to the National Center on Addiction & Substance Abuse at Columbia University, less than 1% of all individuals
incarcerated in federal and state prisoners in the United States are incarcerated for marijuana possession as their sole offense. See
BEHIND BARS II, supra note 8, at 2 & 14.
53
Thus, our analysis will not reflect the dramatic rate at which corrections expenditures, as a percentage of overall state budgets,
have been increasing nationwide since the late 1980s, often at the expense of other crucial state services, such as public education
and infrastructure. See generally PEW CTR. ON THE STATES, ONE IN 31: THE LONG REACH OF AMERICAN CORRECTIONS 11 (2009), available at http://
www.pewstates.org/research/reports/one-in-31-85899371887 (reporting that overall state spending on corrections increased from
$11 billion in 1988 to $52 billion in 2008); CHRISTIAN HENRICHSON & RUTH DELANEY, VERA INST. OF JUST., THE PRICE OF PRISONS: WHAT INCARCERATION
COSTS TAXPAYERS 6, 8 (2012), available at http://www.vera.org/pubs/price-prisons-what-incarceration-costs-taxpayers (highlighting
that in some states a significant proportion of incarceration costs is found in other areas of the state budget, such as the “central
administrative funds” or “central account” and stating that the true total taxpayer cost of incarceration is more realistically equal to $77
billion annually); see also INIMAI CHETTIAR, WILL BUNTING & GEOFF SCHOTTER, ACLU, AT AMERICA’S EXPENSE: THE MASS INCARCERATION OF THE ELDERLY v
& vii (2012), available at http://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/americas-expense-mass-incarceration-elderly (follow “At America’s
Expense” hyperlink, then follow “Read or Download the Report” hyperlink) (finding that approximately 16% of the national prison
population is 50 and older and that it costs $68,270 per year to house these elderly prisoners).

70

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 particular, using a modified proportionate cost methodology, the High Estimate of the
annual fiscal costs of marijuana possession arrests in the United States is calculated as:
$6.032 billion.

ii. Low Estimate
To calculate the Low Estimate of the annual fiscal costs of marijuana possession arrests
in the United States, rather than pursue the top-down, aggregate expenditures approach
developed by Professor Miron, where fiscal expenditures are prorated in proportion to
the total number of arrests, the report adopts a conceptually straightforward unit cost
approach in which the unit cost per marijuana possession arrest is multiplied by the
total number of such arrests.54 Unfortunately, at present, the data required to calculate
precisely the unit cost of a marijuana possession arrest on a state-by-state basis is not
available.55
A number of researchers and policy analysts, however, have examined police and
adjudication expenses in smaller, isolated jurisdictions, and while these unit cost
estimates vary, with costs generally increasing over time, there is considerable
agreement that the minimal unit fiscal cost of a misdemeanor arrest ranges from $1,000
to $2,000. Specifically, the present report borrows unit cost estimates from what is
perhaps the most often cited and highly respected study of the fiscal costs of arrests
and prosecutions, published in 2001 by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy
(WSIPP).56 It is important to note, however, that the estimates derived by the WSIPP are
specific to Washington state and may not translate reliably to other states. Moreover,
the WSIPP estimates reflect the policing cost of a misdemeanor arrest rather than the
policing cost of a marijuana possession arrest more specifically, although there is little
reason to think that these two costs should differ significantly. Like the High Estimate,
the Low Estimate is calculated as the sum of the following criminal justice system
expenditures: (1) police expenditures, (2) judicial and legal services expenditures, and (3)
corrections expenditures.

54
This alternative methodology has been used in a number of reports investigating the fiscal costs of marijuana enforcement

and prohibition. See, e.g., HARRY LEVINE, JON GETTMAN & LOREN SIEGEL, MARIJUANA ARREST RESEARCH PROJECT, 240,000 MARIJUANA ARRESTS: COSTS, 

CONSEQUENCES, AND RACIAL DISPARITIES OF POSSESSION ARRESTS IN WASHINGTON, 1986-2010 6 (2012) [hereinafter LEVINE, GETTMAN & SIEGEL], available 

at http://marijuana-arrests.com/docs/240,000-Marijuana-Arrests-In-Washington.pdf; Jonathan P. Caulkins, Cost of Marijuana Prohibition 

on the California Criminal Justice System (RAND Drug Pol’y Res. Ctr., Working Paper, July 2010) [hereinafter Caulkins, Marijuana 

Prohibition], available at http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/working_papers/2010/RAND_WR763.pdf; see also BECKETT & 

HERBERT, supra note 11.

55
See LEVINE, GETTMAN & SIEGEL, supra note 54.

56
See STEVE AOS, POLLY PHIPPS, ROBERT BARNOSKI & ROXANNE LIEB, WASH. STATE INST. FOR PUB. POL’Y, THE COMPARATIVE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF

PROGRAMS TO REDUCE CRIME (2001) [hereinafter 2001 WSIPP REPORT], available at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/costbenefit.pdf.


Fiscal Costs Analysis

  71


 On the basis of the WSIPP 2001 Report, as well as other comparable studies and fiscal
impact analyses, this report conservatively estimates the operating per unit cost of
policing marijuana possession as: $750/arrest.57
Next, the average annual cost per arrest made in Washington was approximately
$5,518 in 2010, and is calculated by dividing Washington’s total expenditures on policing
(including capital expenditures) by the total number of arrests made in 2010.58 If the
operating per unit cost of policing marijuana possession is $750/arrest in 2010, then
the operating per unit cost of a marijuana possession arrest is approximately 13.6%
(= 750/5,518) of the average annual cost per arrests.59 Thus, to estimate the annual
operating per unit cost of policing marijuana possession in a given state in 2010, the
average annual cost per arrest is first calculated. This number is then multiplied
by approximately 13.6% to obtain the estimated operating per unit policing cost of a
marijuana possession arrest for that state. Estimated total annual police expenditures
by the state on marijuana possession arrests in 2010 are calculated by multiplying
this number times the total number of marijuana possession arrests made in 2010, as
reported to the FBI/UCR Program.
The annual costs of adjudicating marijuana possession arrests (i.e., judicial and legal
services expenditures) are derived in a similar manner. Specifically, on the basis of the
WSIPP 2001 Report, as well as other relevant studies and fiscal impact analyses, our
report conservatively estimates the operating per unit cost of adjudicating a marijuana
possession offense, which is assumed to include court costs, as well as the fiscal costs

57
The 2001 WSIPP Report calculated the operating per unit policing cost of a misdemeanor arrest as $764/arrest in 1995 dollars
(or, equivalently, as $1,079/arrest in 2010 dollars). See 2001 WSIPP REPORT, supra note 56, at 82. By contrast, a lesser-known, more
recent 2006 study also published by the WSIPP, using a slightly different model, calculated the operating per unit policing cost of a
misdemeanor arrest as $305/arrest in 1995 dollars (or, equivalently, as $351/arrest in 2010 dollars). See STEVE AOS, MARNA MILLER &
ELIZABETH DRAKE, WASH. STATE INST. FOR PUB. POL’Y, EVIDENCE-BASED PUBLIC POLICY OPTIONS TO REDUCE FUTURE PRISON CONSTRUCTION, CRIMINAL JUSTICE
COSTS, AND CRIME RATES (2006), [hereafter 2006 WSIPP REPORT],available at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/pub.asp?docid=06-10-1201. Although
the two studies arrive at different estimates regarding per unit policing costs, they reach similar estimates regarding total per unit
criminal justice expenditures with respect to misdemeanor arrests. See infra text accompanying note 60 (explaining that the 2006
study arrived at higher estimates than the 2001 study regarding the per unit adjudication costs). This report relies more heavily on the
estimates of the 2001 study due to its greater prominence in the field.
58
“Capital expenditures” include construction costs; equipment, such as vehicles, furnishings, and computers; and other capital
costs, such as the purchase of land.
59
In other words, the report estimates that the marginal cost of a marijuana possession arrest is equal to 13.6% of the average cost
of all arrests made.

72

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 of both defense and prosecution, as: $400/disposition sought on a marijuana possession
arrest.60
Next, in Washington, the average annual cost per court case was approximately $6,985 in
2010, and is calculated by dividing Washington’s total expenditures on judicial and legal
services (including capital expenditures) by the total number of court cases in 2010. The
operating per unit adjudication cost of a disposition sought for a marijuana possession
arrest is, therefore, approximately 5.7% (= 400/6,985) of the average annual cost per
court case. Thus, to estimate the annual operating per unit adjudication cost of a
disposition sought on a marijuana possession arrest in a given state, the average annual
cost per court case is calculated and multiplied by approximately 5.7%. Estimated
annual legal and judicial expenditures by the state on marijuana possession arrests in
2010 are then calculated by multiplying this estimated operating per unit adjudication
cost of a disposition sought for a marijuana possession arrest times the total number of
dispositions sought on marijuana possession arrests in the state in 2010, where, based
on limited available state-level data, the report assumes that, on average, dispositions
are sought on 90% of all arrests for marijuana possession.61
Finally, the annual corrections costs associated with marijuana possession enforcement
are estimated as (1) the number of individuals in local jail or county correctional facilities
for a marijuana possession offense multiplied by the average state-level per diem
costs of jail/county correctional facilities, plus (2) the number of individuals on local or
community supervision for a marijuana possession offense multiplied by the average per
diem cost of such supervision.62 Unfortunately, well-known data limitations complicate
the derivation of the number of individuals in jail or on local supervision as a result of a

60
The 2001 WSIPP Report calculated the operating per unit adjudication cost of a misdemeanor arrest as $336/conviction in
1995 dollars (or, equivalently, as $475/conviction in 2010 dollars), where, notably, the estimate does not include defense costs. See
2001 WSIPP REPORT, supra note 56, at 83. The 2006 WSIPP Report calculated the operating per unit adjudication cost of misdemeanors
as $593/conviction (or, equivalently, as $603/conviction in 2010 dollars), again not including defense costs. See 2006 WSIPP REPORT,
supra note 57, at 41. Other studies have derived similar estimates in slightly different contexts. Using data from several jurisdictions,
Mark Cohen calculated combined police and court costs to be about $2,000 for a rape arrest, $1,100 for a robbery arrest, and
approximately $1,200 for an aggravated assault arrest, measured in 1987 dollars. See Mark A. Cohen, Nat’l Inst. of Just., Measuring
the Costs and Benefits of Crime and Justice, in MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS OF CRIME AND JUSTICE 263, 297 (2000), available at http://www.
smartpolicinginitiative.com/sites/all/files/Measuring%20the%20Costs%20and%20Benefits%20of%20Crime%20and%20Justice.
pdf. Evaluating mandatory sentencing costs in California, Greenwood and others estimated $624 in police costs and $1,300 in total
costs per arrest, measured in 1993 dollars. See PETER W. GREENWOOD ET AL., RAND CORP., THREE STRIKES AND YOU’RE OUT: ESTIMATED BENEFITS
AND COSTS OF CALIFORNIA’S NEW MANDATORY SENTENCING LAW 15, tbl.3.1 (1994), available at http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/
monograph_reports/2006/MR509.pdf. The National Juvenile Justice Network has developed a useful toolkit to calculate the approximate
cost of an arrest in a local jurisdiction. See generally JULIUS C. CHAIDEZ, NAT’L JUV. JUST. NETWORK, HOW TO CALCULATE THE COST OF A YOUTH ARREST
(2012), available at http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/NJJN-Arrest-Costing-Toolkit-FINAL-Nov12.pdf.
61
See Caulkins, Marijuana Prohibition, supra note 54, at 9 (“For most but not all marijuana arrests a ‘complaint was sought’ as
opposed to simply releasing the person or transferring them to another agency.”).
62
“Local or community supervision” is an alternative to incarceration, defined as a court-ordered period of correctional supervision
in the community.

Fiscal Costs Analysis

  73


 marijuana possession conviction.63 In response to these data limitations, two simplifying
assumptions are made, both of which are informed by data that are available for specific
local jurisdictions: (1) the average conviction rate in cases where a disposition is sought
on an arrest for marijuana possession is 0.3 or 30%;64 and (2) the average time spent
in local jail or county correctional facilities on a marijuana possession conviction is 5.5
days, with an additional 74.5 days spent on local or community supervision.65
Based on a review of other studies examining the fiscal impact of mass incarceration,
this report estimates the average per diem cost of local or community supervision
as $2/day for all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia.66 In addition, the
report calculates the average per diem jail cost on a state-by-state basis using
publicly available data on the total jail population, coupled with the corrections
expenditure data for jail and county correctional facilities used to calculate the High
Estimate.67 Specifically, the report estimates the national average per diem jail cost as
approximately $95/day.
Using these estimates, the average corrections cost of a marijuana possession
conviction in the United States is calculated as $672 (= $95*5.5 + $2*74.5), where the
first term corresponds to estimated average jail costs and the second term corresponds
to estimated average local or community supervision costs. The estimated annual
corrections cost of marijuana possession enforcement in the United States is readily
obtained by multiplying the average corrections cost, $672, by the estimated total
number of convictions for marijuana possession offenses, recalling that 27% (= 0.9*0.3)
of all arrests for marijuana possession offenses are assumed to result in a conviction.

63
See Caulkins, Marijuana Prohibition, supra note 54, at 9-12; Peter Reuter, Paul Hirschfield & Curt Davies, Assessing the CrackDown on Marijuana in Maryland 37 (Abell Found., Working Paper, May 2001), available at http://www.abell.org/pubsitems/hhs_assessing_
crackdown_501.pdf (“It proved exceedingly difficult to obtain data on the number of admissions to jail for specific offenses.”).
64
See, e.g., LAWRENCE W. BOYD, DRUG POL’Y ACTION GROUP, THE BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS OF MARIJUANA DECRIMINALIZATION AND LEGALIZATION IN HAWAI’I
7 (2005), available at http://www.dpfhi.org/A_PDF/Budgetary_Implications_Marijuana_Decrim.pdf (“Approximately 65% [of misdemeanor
drug cases] are dismissed, not prosecuted, or stricken … and a relatively small proportion, about 25%, results in conviction.”); see
generally DAVID C. NIXON, DRUG POL’Y ACTION GROUP, UPDATE TO: BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS OF MARIJUANA DECRIMINALIZATION AND LEGALIZATION IN HAWAI’I
(2013), available at http://acluhawaii.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/econreptmarijuana1_2013.pdf (updating Boyd (2005) using data
through 2011 and demonstrating that Hawaii’s enforcement of marijuana possession laws has jumped significantly over the past
half-decade); see also SANDRA NORMAN-EADY, CONN. G. ASSEMB., OFFICE OF LEGIS. RESEARCH, MARIJUANA CRIMES AND STATISTICS tbl.3 (2008), available
at http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-r-0455.htm (reporting conviction rates for possession or control of any quantity of any controlled
substance, other than a narcotic substance or a hallucinogenic substance other than marijuana, or less than four ounces of marijuana
(CGS § 21a-279 (c)), ranging from 33.1% to 36.4% over the period of 2002-2007).
65
See, e.g., Local Government Fiscal Note 1550 HB at 4 (“According to the AOC [Administrative Office of the Courts] 2009
misdemeanor convictions table the average jail sentence for possession of marijuana for less than 40 grams was 82.7 days, with all
but 4.4 days suspended.”); see also BECKETT & HERBERT, supra note 11, at 29 (“The average misdemeanant spends 5.8 days in jail at a
cost of $89 per day”). The U.S. Department of Justice reports that 80% of all defendants charged with felony drug possession crime are
released within one week of their booking into the jail. Moreover, as Professor Austin notes, “[w]hile the length of stay may be short,
the booking process is one of the most expensive and dangerous operations in a jail.” JAMES AUSTIN, JFA INST., NAT’L ORG. FOR THE REFORM OF
MARIJUANA LAWS 8-9 (2005), available at http://norml.org/pdf_files/NORML_Rethinking_Decriminalizing_Marijuana.pdf.
66
See, e.g., LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD, CRIMINAL JUSTICE UNIFORM COST REPORT, FISCAL YEARS 2008-2010 11 (Jan. 2011) (calculating a $2.92
per diem total cost of community supervision); see also RAM SUBRAMANIAN & REBECCA TUBLITZ, VERA INST. FOR JUST., REALIGNING JUSTICE RESOURCES:
A REVIEW OF POPULATION AND SPENDING SHIFTS IN PRISON AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS (2012), available at http://www.vera.org/files/Full%20Report.
pdf.
67
See JAMES J. STEPHAN & GEORGETTE WALSH, U.S. DEP’T OF JUST., BUREAU OF JUST. STAT., CENSUS FOR JAIL FACILITIES, 2006 (2011).

74

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 The Low Estimate represents, in our view, a plausible lower bound on the annual fiscal
costs of marijuana possession arrests for the country as a whole that is generally
supported by other fiscal impact studies focusing solely on marijuana-related costs in
smaller jurisdictions. The Low Estimate is calculated as the sum of the estimated annual
fiscal expenditures on policing, adjudication, and corrections, and is equal to: $1.196
billion.

iii. Middle Estimate
The Middle Estimate is simply calculated as the average of the Low and High Estimates.
The Middle Estimate represents this report’s best estimate of the true annual fiscal
costs of marijuana possession enforcement in the United States, and is equal to: $3.614
billion.
The Middle Estimate is depicted graphically in Figure 24, along with the Low and High
Estimates for comparison.
FIGURE 24
Estimated Annual Fiscal Costs of Marijuana Possession Enforcement in U.S. (2010)
$7 Billion
6,032,282,773

$6 Billion
$5 Billion
$4 Billion

3,613,969,792

$3 Billion
$2 Billion
1,195,656,830

$1 Billion

Low Estimate
Middle Estimate
Source: ACLU Nationwide Fiscal Impact Analysis (2013)

High Estimate

Fiscal Costs Analysis

  75


 Appendix A, Table A7 further reports the Low, Middle, and High Estimates on a state-by­
state basis.68
Table 13 breaks down the Middle Estimate, which is the report’s best estimate of the
true fiscal cost of marijuana possession enforcement by state in terms of (1) police
expenditures, (2) judicial and legal expenditures, and (3) corrections expenditures.
Police and judicial/legal expenditures constitute the bulk of the fiscal cost of marijuana
possession enforcement in each state. New York, for example, spent $574.5 million
on police and judicial/legal services combined on marijuana possession arrests;
California spent $425.5 million. Moreover, note that for each state, expenditures are not
proportionate across the three fiscal spending categories, because the relative amount
spent, in total, on each of these three categories of criminal justice expenditures varies
by state; and the Middle Estimate is a function of these total expenditure amounts. The
ratio of police expenditures to judicial/legal services, for example, in Hawaii, Alaska,
and Kentucky is approximately equal to one. In North Carolina, Illinois, and Florida, by
contrast, this same ratio is approximately equal to three (i.e., in 2010, each of these
states spent approximately three times more on police than on judicial/legal services).
Finally, even when ignoring entirely all fiscal spending on state prison facilities,
corrections expenditures associated with marijuana possession enforcement are not
trivial; California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas, for example, each spent more
than an estimated $20 million of state taxpayer money in 2010 housing individuals in
local jails and county correctional facilities for possession of marijuana, with California
spending more than $65 million and New York more than $103 million.

68
Note that our fiscal cost estimates are less variable than would be the case if conviction rates and jail sentences imposed for
marijuana possession offenses (which are held constant in our fiscal analysis) were allowed to vary across all 50 states, as well as
the District of Columbia. The same holds true with respect to marijuana possession’s percentage share of all arrests (as well as its
percentage share of all court cases), variables that, as this report finds, vary across all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia, but
which the report holds constant for the purposes of our fiscal cost estimates.

76

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 TABLE 13

Annual Fiscal Cost of Marijuana Possession Enforcement by State (2010)

Fiscal Expenditures by Category (in dollars)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
D.C.
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
United States

Police

Judicial & Legal

Corrections

7,102,974
3,120,335
39,842,768
6,900,048
209,655,536
19,667,502
20,631,726
6,088,890
17,931,502
125,627,288
58,312,112
2,954,338
5,520,933
126,770,856
19,019,174
10,476,821
10,312,387
7,621,554
20,820,868
4,000,067
55,304,360
4,637,007
47,342,472
21,132,200
8,740,758
27,934,658
2,742,488
10,279,377
20,225,352
2,990,006
59,824,356
4,892,209
312,838,848
29,278,582
1,765,464
58,318,516
16,548,724
22,916,122
42,185,656
6,530,830
25,775,858
2,603,931
21,680,354
126,051,984
6,179,560
2,355,988
33,484,050
14,677,699
8,297,871
22,896,670
4,347,580
1,747,157,206

4,923,779
4,506,208
32,130,460
4,580,166
215,907,232
14,307,992
24,825,234
5,565,111
6,340,831
71,162,936
44,361,480
4,629,526
4,861,350
72,313,504
13,862,287
9,821,206
7,521,286
9,503,561
18,037,214
3,032,438
39,281,380
4,149,921
34,981,716
15,231,101
5,558,722
17,447,384
2,853,947
8,601,595
14,261,103
2,369,232
50,239,964
4,781,376
261,724,896
17,512,486
1,569,460
54,232,980
12,085,168
16,259,286
40,449,756
4,199,064
16,244,107
2,131,037
15,870,712
85,102,288
5,739,280
1,995,941
23,272,156
14,653,145
8,185,582
14,583,442
3,438,789
1,371,200,815

1,260,020
839,758
13,849,007
1,714,300
65,403,300
3,731,071
4,369,251
1,580,180
2,255,385
31,845,628
19,224,558
565,083
1,502,169
22,347,420
5,599,443
2,547,612
2,349,114
2,374,654
7,592,286
1,836,459
12,117,049
540,723
12,514,604
5,707,988
2,441,293
3,737,572
565,431
3,928,298
7,115,149
1,167,126
17,279,192
1,405,865
103,886,848
8,143,603
387,127
7,596,568
2,196,012
11,018,617
18,113,114
1,121,471
7,520,674
816,961
5,397,755
40,494,536
2,151,927
536,010
10,488,655
5,295,467
891,896
6,885,944
1,361,657
495,611,826

Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data, 2010, and Criminal Justice Expenditure and Employment
Extracts Program (CJEE), 2009

Fiscal Costs Analysis

  77

 B. Analysis

Having estimated annual total fiscal expenditures on marijuana possession enforcement,
it is straightforward to calculate marijuana possession enforcement’s percentage
share of total annual criminal justice expenditures. To control for the fact that certain
states spend relatively more, in per capita terms, on criminal justice as a whole, fiscal
expenditures are divided by the state’s total census population to obtain a measure
of how much the state spends per person enforcing its marijuana possession laws.
Specifically, Figure 25 lists the 15 states with the highest per capita fiscal expenditures
on marijuana possession enforcement.69

FIGURE 25
States That Spend the Most Per Capita on Marijuana Possession Enforcement
(2010)
D.C.
New York
Maryland
Illinois
Wyoming
Nevada
Delaware
New Jersey
Connecticut
Arizona
California
Oregon
Nebraska
Alaska
Georgia
0

5

10

15
20
25
30
35
40
Per Capita Expenditures (in Dollars)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, 2010

45

Note that the District of Columbia spends the most per capita on marijuana enforcement,
as Figure 25 demonstrates, even though its percentage share of annual criminal justice
expenditures accounted for by marijuana possession enforcement is lower than New
York and Illinois. This is because the District of Columbia spends more, in per capita
terms, on criminal justice as a whole than do any of the 50 states in the country. That
is, even though the percentage of criminal justice system expenditures accounted for
by marijuana possession is smaller in the District of Columbia than in either New York

69
To put these numbers in some context, note that New York, Illinois, and Maryland spent more in 2010 on marijuana possession
enforcement, in per capita terms, than the nation spent, on average, on capital outlays for hospital facilities, provision of hospital care,
and support of public or private hospitals.

78

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 or Illinois, because the District of Columbia spends sufficiently more per capita on its
criminal justice system as a whole than does either New York or Illinois, the smaller
percentage share spent on marijuana enforcement still translates into relatively larger
per capita expenditures on marijuana enforcement (as compared to New York and
Illinois). The same is true of California, Nevada, and Wyoming, states that all spend
more than $900 per capita on criminal justice and are among those with the highest per
capita fiscal expenditures on marijuana possession enforcement, but none of which are
in the top 10 in terms of the percentage share of criminal justice system expenditures
accounted for by marijuana possession enforcement.

Fiscal Costs Analysis

  79


 PROFILE

Nick Smith, 31
Austin, TX
very weekday morning for the last three years, Nick Smith has left his
house at 7:15 a.m. He catches a bus that takes him to work downtown.
The ride, which includes walks on both ends and a wait for the bus,
takes twice as long as driving. But in Texas, a conviction for marijuana
possession means an automatic license suspension. Mr. Smith, who has
been arrested three times for marijuana possession, could not drive for a
long time.

E

The first time Mr. Smith was arrested (he was 18), he spent the night in jail
and one year on probation. There were fines and court fees to pay. “All I had
was a blunt,” he said. “All I had was five dollars worth of weed, and it cost
me about two thousand dollars,” he said.

80

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 All told, Mr. Smith has spent almost three months in jail for marijuana
possession. A 20-day jail stint cost him a job at a fast-food restaurant. “I
come back to Austin and they told me ‘We couldn’t keep your job; we had to
hire somebody else.’ And I’m like, dang, here I am back to square one, no
job, no income.”

Mr. Smith has spent
almost three months in
jail … and spent close to
$10,000 on … charges for
marijuana possession.

But now Mr. Smith has been
working as a clerk at the
Texas Workforce Commission
for three years. His girlfriend,
Danyell Stanley, has a fulltime job at Time Warner. They
have a baby daughter, Sydney;
the three of them recently
moved in with Mr. Smith’s
mother and sister so they can
save money to buy a place of
their own. He is happy in his
current job, but not having
a license had meant that he
could only apply for jobs he
could get to on the bus.

It also affected where they
could live, Ms. Stanley said.
“When we were actively
seeking our own place, one
of the key things was, is it on
the bus line? Will you be able to get to work?” The farther from Mr. Smith’s
job they moved, the longer his commute, and the more Ms. Stanley had to
be responsible for their daughter. And until Mr. Smith got his new license,
Ms. Stanley had to take Sydney to and from daycare, and anywhere else she
needed to go, even though Ms. Stanley’s work hours are less flexible than
Mr. Smith’s.

Moreover, Mr. Smith is a musician, and used to play regularly in clubs in
Austin and around Texas. But he had to give it up because he could not
drive to rehearsals or shows.
Mr. Smith recently managed to get an occupational driver’s license — it
cost him $250 and a court appearance — that allows him to drive to and

Profile

  81


 from work, which means he can finally use his car. But none of this has
been easy.
The arrests have cost them money they can ill afford. Altogether, Mr.
Smith estimates that he has spent close to $10,000 on court costs, fines,
and lawyers’ fees just to handle charges for possessing marijuana. That
does not account for lost wages, or for time he had to appear in court or
was in jail.
Even though even though it has been years since he was arrested for
marijuana possession, he is still paying administrative fees to the state.
That money, Mr. Smith says, he and Ms. Stanley could use for Sydney. “It’d
go to [formula] and diapers and wipes.”
PROFILE

Marisa Garcia, 32
Los Angeles, CA

M

arisa Garcia never expected her 19th birthday celebration to cost her
a year of college tuition. It was January 2000, a month before she
was to start her first semester of college at Cal State Fullerton.

She and two friends were on their way to pick up another friend, not
far from where they lived east of Los Angeles, when Ms. Garcia’s friend
stopped for gas. Ms. Garcia went inside to pay, and came out to find a
police car parked behind their van.
“Eventually they started searching the car,” she remembered. “There was
a little coin purse, with a small pipe with ash in it. It was put away; it wasn’t
in plain view.”
When Ms. Garcia admitted it was hers, the police arrested her and wrote
her a summons for possession of marijuana. “I had never been in any sort
of trouble,” she said.
She decided not to tell her parents. When she showed up for her court
appearance, she did not bring a lawyer.
“I just said, ‘Guilty’ [when the judge asked how she pled],” she said.

82

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 Ms. Garcia feels that
because she did not
have money, she was
punished twice for
marijuana possession.
Even after she paid
her fine, she then lost
her financial aid.

She paid about $400 in court fees,
and thought she had put the ordeal
behind her.
But then, two months later, she got
a letter from the federal financial aid
office saying she had to answer the
question asking whether she had a drug
conviction. A drug conviction of any kind
is grounds for revoking federal financial
aid. Ms. Garcia had not been trying to
dodge the question the first time: her
mother had filled out the application, and
simply did not see it.

“And my heart kind of stopped. My mom is just like, ‘Answer no, and we’ll
send it back.’ I had to tell her, ‘I don’t know that I can answer no.’”
Ms. Garcia ended up losing her financial aid for a year (a second conviction

Profile
  

83


 can result in a longer suspension; more
than three bars receipt of federal financial
aid indefinitely).
She could have gotten her aid reinstated
sooner if she had gone through a courtapproved drug treatment program. But Ms.
Garcia was only a recreational marijuana
user, and, moreover, the drug treatment
programs cost more than the tuition she
could not afford without a loan.
“I felt like I just screwed up a huge part of
my life. I was telling my mom, ‘I’ll drop out
of school.’”
Her mother, Sandra Garcia, put her foot
down. “You need an education to get
somewhere in life,” she said. “I wanted that for my family.”
Marisa Garcia was lucky. Her mother, who was supporting Ms. Garcia and
her three brothers alone, was in the process of refinancing the family’s
three-bedroom house when Marisa lost her aid. So she took out a line of
equity on the house, and drew money against it to pay her daughter’s tuition.
Today, Ms. Garcia works as an office manager at a non-profit organization
in Los Angeles. She also volunteers with other groups, trying to change the
drug laws, so nobody else has to go through what she did.
She feels that because she did not have money, she was punished twice:
even after she paid her fine, she then lost her financial aid.
“I still would have been arrested for marijuana. [But] if I was wealthier, I
could go out and do whatever I wanted and just be punished once.”

84

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 THE RISE IN MARIJUANA POSSESSION
ARRESTS: WHAT CAUSED THE EXPLOSION?
VI.

This section addresses some of the possible key factors that have led to the significant
increase in marijuana arrests over the last decade. First, it looks at this country’s
marijuana policies in the context of the disastrous War on Drugs. Second, this section
discusses the implementation of policing strategies in the 1990s that shifted law
enforcement priorities toward low-level offenses. Lastly, the section addresses some of
the law enforcement incentives behind making marijuana arrests, namely data-driven
crime assessment systems that place a premium on large numbers of arrests, and the
fact that arrests for marijuana possession are included in the federal government’s
performance measures for law enforcement agencies participating in the Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant Program.

A. The

War on Drugs and the Shift from
Rehabilitation to Punishment

Before the War on Drugs began in the 1970s and was ramped up in the 1980s, many
American policymakers viewed drug abuse as a social disease, like alcoholism, that
should be dealt with by treating the underlying addiction. A reform process had been
underway in the 1960s that adopted this medico-legal view of drug policy, and laws
enacted during this time reflected this approach.70 When the use of narcotics began to
increase during the 1960s, the government responded by passing the Narcotics Addict
Rehabilitation Act (NARA) in 1966.71 As its title indicates, the Act reflected the medical
view of drug addictions as a disease and provided for the diversion of drug abusers into
70
See, e.g., Civil Commitment and Treatment of Narcotic Addicts: Hearings on H.R. 9051, H.R. 9159 and H.R. 9167 and Related Bills before
Subcomm. No. 2 of the Comm. on the Judiciary, 89th Cong. 234 (1965) (statement of Hon. Ogden R. Reid, Rep. of the State of N.Y.)(“The
purpose of these bills … is to come up with a full-scale approach to the problem of narcotics and to distinguish between the criminal
‘pusher’ and the victimized addict who is in need of medical treatment, assistance and rehabilitation and not a postgraduate course in
crime.”) Congress members called on the federal government to abandon the criminal approach toward drug use:
[D]rug addiction is a medical problem. This may not sound very revolutionary, but up to now the Congress of the United
States, judging by the laws that it has passed, has viewed it as a revenue problem and a criminal problem, but not as a
question involving the health of our citizens … there can be no real solution to the problem of drug abuse in this country
unless Federal efforts to solve it include a medical approach.
Id. at 53 (statement of Hon. Emanuel Celler, a Rep. of the State of N.Y.).
71
See ANDREW B. WHITFORD & JEFF YATES, PRESIDENTIAL RHETORIC AND THE PUBLIC AGENDA: CONSTRUCTING THE WAR ON DRUGS 39-40 (John Hopkins
Univ. Press 2009).

The Rise in Marijuana Possession Arrests

  85


 programs to treat their underlying addiction rather than prosecute them in the criminal
justice system.72 Even President Richard Nixon’s administration had initially adopted the
popular view at the time that drug abuse was a health problem, and called for education
and scientific research to learn about the dangerousness of drugs.73
In 1970, the federal government passed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and
Control Act of 1970 (1970 Act), which contained provisions that softened the drug laws:
the repeal of mandatory minimums for drug offenses,74 re-categorization of possession
of a controlled substance as a misdemeanor, and probation for first-time offenders. Title
II of the 1970 Act, which included the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), established five
drug regulation schedules based on their medical values and potentials for addiction.
Schedule I was reserved for the most serious drugs with purported high potential for
abuse, lack of any accepted medical use, and absence of any accepted use or benefits in
medically supervised treatment. Congress noted a lack of scientific study on marijuana
and claimed that further research was necessary to determine its health effects, and
thus temporarily placed marijuana in Schedule I.75

72

See 42 U.S.C. § 3401:
It is the policy of the Congress that certain persons charged with or convicted of violating Federal criminal laws, who are
determined to be addicted to narcotic drugs, and likely to be rehabilitated through treatment, should, in lieu of prosecution
or sentencing, be civilly committed for confinement and treatment designed to effect their restoration to health, and return
to society as useful members. It is the further policy of the Congress that certain persons addicted to narcotic drugs who
are not charged with the commission of any offense should be afforded the opportunity, through civil commitment, for
treatment, in order that they may be rehabilitated and returned to society as useful members and in order that society may
be protected more effectively from crime and delinquency which result from narcotic addiction.

Id.
73
See Richard Nixon: Special Message to the Congress on Control of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY PROJECT
(July 14, 1969), available at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=2126&st=&st1.
74
Federal mandatory minimum penalties for drug offenses were first introduced by the Boggs Act of 1951. See U.S. SENTENCING
COMM’N, REPORT ON COCAINE AND FED. SENTENCING POL’Y (2007) [hereinafter REPORT ON COCAINE AND FED. SENTENCING POL’Y], available at http://www.
ussc.gov/Legislative_and_Public_Affairs/Congressional_Testimony_and_Reports/Drug_Topics/199502_RtC_Cocaine_Sentencing_
Policy/CHAP6.HTM. Two decades later, Congress overhauled federal drug policy, repealing the Act with the Comprehensive Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control Act of 1970. Congress members “expressed a general concern that ‘increasingly longer sentences that had
been legislated in the past had not shown the expected overall reduction in drug law violations.’” Id. (citing S. Rep. No. 613, 91st Cong.,
1st Sess. (Dec. 16, 1969)). The Act of 1970 illustrates the government’s shift away from overly punitive drug laws toward a rehabilitative
approach.
75
Ironically, future research about marijuana’s medical benefits has been limited precisely because of its categorization as a
Schedule I drug. Researchers must obtain a special license from the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to conduct research and gain
access to supply, which is controlled by the National Institutes of Drug Abuse (NIDA). Rep. Earl Blumenauer & Rep. Jared Polis, The
Path Forward: Rethinking Federal Marijuana Policy 12 (2013), available at http://polis.house.gov/uploadedfiles/the_path_forward.pdf. To
this day, marijuana remains a Schedule I drug, meaning that the federal government considers it as having a higher potential for abuse
than cocaine, a Schedule II drug, and as high a potential for abuse as heroin and LSD. This categorization continues to be criticized as
having no scientific basis:
Based on evidence currently available the Schedule I classification is not tenable; it is not accurate that cannabis has no
medical value, or that information on safety is lacking. It is true cannabis has some abuse potential, but its profile more
closely resembles drugs in Schedule III (where codeine and dronabinol are listed). The continuing conflict between scientific
evidence and political ideology will hopefully be reconciled in a judicious manner.
Igor Grant et al., Medical Marijuana: Clearing Away the Smoke, 6 THE OPEN NEUROLOGY J. 18, 24 (2012), available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pmc/articles/PMC3358713/pdf/TONEUJ-6-18.pdf.

86

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 The 1970 Act also established the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse
to assess the medical and addictive effects of marijuana. The Commission’s First Report
to Congress, Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, recommended that marijuana
no longer be classified as a narcotic, since that definition associated marijuana
with more addictive drugs such as heroin and misled the public by exaggerating
marijuana’s harms.76 The report further recommended decriminalization of marijuana
in small amounts for personal use.77 A second report the following year, Drug Use in
America: Problem in Perspective, reaffirmed the findings of the first report and again
recommended decriminalization.78 While the reports and their recommendation to
decriminalize marijuana had gained widespread support, the Nixon administration
ignored the Commission’s findings.79
Despite the fact that Nixon disregarded the Commission’s reports, and even after Nixon
initiated the War on Drugs by declaring drugs “public enemy number one” in 1971, his
administration maintained a strong focus on rehabilitation and treatment.80 Indeed, the
majority of government funding at the time was dedicated to rehabilitation programs
aimed at eradicating heroin use.81 Similarly, in 1975, the Ford administration’s White
Paper on Drug Abuse identified marijuana as a low-priority drug, and recommended that
treatment and law enforcement efforts instead prioritize drugs that pose the greatest
health risks, such as heroin and amphetamines.82 In 1976, Jimmy Carter, whose own

76
NAT’L COMM’N ON MARIHUANA AND DRUG ABUSE, MARIHUANA: A SIGNAL OF MISUNDERSTANDING 223 (1972).
77
Id. at 191.
78
See NAT’L COMMISSION ON MARIHUANA AND DRUG ABUSE, DRUG USE IN AMERICA: PROBLEM IN PERSPECTIVE, SECOND REPORT at 224 n.5 (1973)
[hereinafter DRUG USE IN AMERICA: PROBLEM IN PERSPECTIVE]. The first report recommended that federal and state governments decriminalize
marijuana possession for personal use. Id. at 458-59.
79
ERNESTO ZEDILLO & HAYNIE WHEELER, EDS., YALE CTR. FOR THE STUDY OF GLOBALIZATION, RETHINKING THE “WAR ON DRUGS” THROUGH THE US-MEXICO
PRISM 10 (2012) [hereinafter ZEDILLO & WHEELER] (citing DAVID F. MUSTO, DRUGS IN AMERICA: A DOCUMENTARY HISTORY 460 (N.Y.U. Press 2002)),
available at http://www.ycsg.yale.edu/center/forms/rethinking-war-on-drugs.pdf; Eric Blumenson & Eva Nilsen, No Rational Basis: The
Pragmatic Case for Marijuana Law Reform, 17 VA. J. SOC. POL’Y & L. 43, 55-56 (2009) (citing RUDOLPH J. GERBER, LEGALIZING MARIJUANA, DRUG
POLICY REFORM AND PROHIBITION POLITICS 25 (2004)) (“the ‘Shafer Commission’ … unequivocally recommended marijuana decriminalization
… [and] urged more attention to scientific findings. … [However,] the President disowned the report out of hand, stating that although
marijuana was no more dangerous than the drink then in his hand, following his commission’s view would send the wrong message.”).
80
Richard Nixon: Special Message to the Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control, THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY PROJECT (June 17,
1971), available at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=3048:
We are taking steps under the Comprehensive Drug Act to deal with the supply side of the equation and I am recommending
additional steps to be taken now. But we must also deal with demand. We must rehabilitate the drug user if we are to
eliminate drug abuse and all the antisocial activities that flow from drug abuse.
81
Id. See also Thirty Years of America’s Drug War: A Chronology, FRONTLINE PBS [hereinafter Thirty Years], available at http://www.pbs.

org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/ (last visited Feb. 13, 2013). Nixon famously declared drug abuse as “public enemy number

one” in response to an explosive report released by Congressmen Robert Steele (R-CT) and Morgan Murphy (D-IL) on the growing heroin

epidemic among U.S. servicemen in Vietnam. See Drug Wars, Part I: Transcripts, PBS FRONTLINE, (PBS television broadcast Oct. 9, 2000),

available at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/etc/script.html (last visited Feb. 13, 2013); Richard Nixon: Remarks 

about an Intensified Program for Drug Abuse Prevention and Control, THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY PROJECT (June 17, 1971), available at http://

www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=3047.

82
See DEA History 25, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMIN., http://www.justice.gov/dea/about/history.shtml (follow “1975-1980” hyperlink)

(last visited Feb. 13, 2013); OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SEC’Y, FACT SHEET: WHITE PAPER ON DRUG ABUSE (1975), available at http://www.

fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/document/0248/whpr19751014-009.pdf.


The Rise in Marijuana Possession Arrests

  87


 drug czar did not view marijuana as a serious public health threat, was elected president
while campaigning on a platform supporting the decriminalization of marijuana.
But the focus on harm reduction and public health was cast aside in the 1980s under
President Ronald Reagan, who, with the help of Congress, ratcheted up the drug war
to a full-fledged assault on drug use, relying on increased arrests and incarceration
as key strategic components. Initially, the United States government focused its law
enforcement resources on cocaine,83 which was fueling the lucrative and expansive
Columbian drug trade. The public alarm over drugs — aided mightily by sustained
media frenzy — escalated in 1984 with the rise of crack cocaine. Reagan responded by
signing the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which budgeted an additional $1.7 billion to
the drug war and imposed mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. Under
the Act, judges were required to sentence individuals convicted of certain drug offenses
to a minimum number of years, or more, known as mandatory minimum sentences.84
Congress decided that these mandatory minimums would be triggered not by a person’s
actual role in a drug offense or operation, but by drug type and quantity instead. Causing
further harm, the United States Sentencing Commission decided to link its Sentencing
Guidelines to these draconian mandatory minimum sentences.85 Although these harsh
sentences were intended for masterminds and managers of large drug operations, as
a result of these sentencing structures, the vast majority of people who have received
such severe sentences are neither kingpins nor leaders, but low-level offenders. The
Act thus stripped judges of discretion to impose fair sentences tailored to the facts and
circumstances of individual cases and the characteristics of individual defendants. The
Act also created the infamous 100-to-1 disparity between powder and crack cocaine,
which imposed the same mandatory minimum sentence upon someone possessing
one one-hundredth the amount of crack cocaine as powder cocaine. So, for example,
83
See David T. Courtwright, The Controlled Substances Act: How a “Big Tent” Reform Became a Punitive Drug Law, 76 DRUG & ALCOHOL

DEPENDENCE 9, 10 (2004) (discussing how the Controlled Substances Act originally was intended to focus on cocaine and opiates, but that

Congress continuously amended the Act to give the DEA greater control over scheduling, transforming the law into the legal foundation

of the drug war).

84
The trend toward mandatory minimums had started the decade before with New York’s Rockefeller drug laws. In 1973, Governor

Nelson Rockefeller enacted “one of the nation’s toughest sentencing schemes for drug offenders, establishing mandatory incarceration

periods for those convicted of the unlawful possession and sale of controlled substances based on the measured weight of the drug

involved in the case.” Edward J. DiMaggio, New York’s Rockefeller Drug Laws, Then and Now, 78 N.Y. ST. B.J. 30, 30 (2006). The laws

required judges to sentence anyone selling two ounces or possessing four ounces of narcotics to a term of 15 years to life — about the

same sentence as for second-degree murder. Madison Gray, A Brief History of New York’s Rockefeller Drug Laws, TIME MAG., Apr. 2, 2009,

available at http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1888864,00.html. This led to an increase in drug convictions in the state,

with no marked decrease in crime. Id. By 1994 drug offenders made up 35% of New York’s prison population, an increase of 24% since

1973. Id.

85
Under the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Congress had created the United States Sentencing Commission to

promulgate mandatory — as opposed to advisory — sentencing guidelines for drug and gun crimes for federal courts. See U.S. 

SENTENCING COMM’N, FIFTEEN YEARS OF GUIDELINES SENTENCING 2 (2004), available at http://www.ussc.gov/Research/Research_Projects/

Miscellaneous/15_Year_Study/chap1.pdf (“The sentencing guidelines were intended most importantly to curtail judicial …

discretion, which was viewed as ‘arbitrary and capricious’ and an ineffective deterrent to crime.”). Requiring judges to follow a set of

sentencing guidelines stripped them of discretion to impose sentences tailored to the individual circumstances of a given case or the

characteristics of the defendant. The mandatory sentences led to rapid increases in incarceration rates and expenditures on prisons.

Charles Ogletree, Getting Tough on Crime: Does it Work?, 38-APR B. B.J. 9, 27 (1994).


88

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 someone convicted of possessing with intent to distribute five grams of crack cocaine
received the same five-year minimum term as someone convicted of possessing with
intent to distribute 500 grams of powder cocaine.86 The combination of increased drug
arrests and lengthier prison sentences contributed significantly to the tenfold growth of
our federal prison population since 1980; indeed, half of all federal prisoners today are
incarcerated for drug offenses.87
Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton continued to fight the drug war
aggressively.88 In 1989, during President Bush’s tenure, the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, created by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 to advise the President on
drug-control issues, coordinate drug-control activities and related funding across the
federal government, and produce an annual National Drug Control Strategy, made clear
in its first strategy report that a central component of its approach to illegal drugs was
arresting more people in targeted communities:
To prevent people from using drugs, drug enforcement activities must
make it increasingly difficult to engage in any drug activity with impunity.
That deterrent, however, will only remain credible so long as pressure is
brought to bear on the entire drug market, dealers and users alike. That’s
why we need a national drug law enforcement strategy that casts a wide net
and seeks to ensure that all drug use — whatever its scale — faces the risk
of criminal sanction … [W]hen neighborhood police increase the number
of drug arrests in an area … the drug markets that menace neighborhoods
cease to flourish … . Effective street-level enforcement means dramatically
increasing the number of drug offenders arrested. But unless there is a
system ready to absorb them, drug control will end at the police station.89
Continuing the legacy of Presidents Reagan and Bush, during President Clinton’s
presidency, drug arrests rose 46%, and more Blacks were imprisoned than ever before
in American history.90

86
In 2010, Congress enacted the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the crack-to-powder cocaine disparity from 100-to-1 to an
equally arbitrary but less drastic 18-to-1. See REPORT ON COCAINE AND FED. SENTENCING POL’Y, supra note 74.
87
NANCY LAVIGNE & JULIE SAMUELS, URBAN INST., JUST. POL’Y CTR., THE GROWTH & INCREASING COST OF THE FEDERAL PRISON SYSTEM: DRIVERS AND
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS 5 (2012), available at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412693-The-Growth-and-Increasing-Cost-of-the-Federal­
Prison-System.pdf.
88
Under President Reagan, federal spending on drug control reached $6.66 billion by 1989. Drug control spending exceeded $19
billion under President Bush and $18 billion under President Clinton. ZIEDENBERG & COLBURN, supra note 11, at 5-6.
89
OFFICE OF NAT’L DRUG CONTROL POL’Y, NAT’L DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY 17-18, 21, 24 (1989), cited in MITCHELL & CAUDY, supra note 7. A copy of
the National Drug Control Strategy report is available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ondcp/119466.pdf.
90
Every year during Clinton’s tenure, the African-American incarceration rate increased by an average rate of 100.4 per 100,000
persons. LISA FELDMAN, VINCENT SCHIRALDI, & JASON ZIEDENBERG, CTR. ON JUV. & CRIM. JUST., TOO LITTLE TOO LATE: PRESIDENT CLINTON’S PRISON LEGACY
2 (2001), available at http://www.cjcj.org/files/too_little.pdf. Clinton also passed the Higher Education Act, which blocks eligibility for
federal financial aid if a student is convicted of a drug offense. See 20 U.S.C. § 1091 (r)(1).

The Rise in Marijuana Possession Arrests

  89


 Our country’s drug war has also fueled an incredibly profitable and violent illegal
drug trade in Mexico.91 Since 1969, when our government began attacking the supply
side of drugs (rather than the current approach of also cracking down heavily on the
demand side),92 the United States has expended significant resources on targeting the
flow of drugs, including marijuana, from Mexico.93 But as the drug war has intensified,
so have the profits and casualties south of our border. An inter-agency report by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation in
2010 found that marijuana is the top
revenue generator of the Mexican drug
trade.94 A RAND study estimated that
15% to 26% of Mexican drug export
revenues are attributable to marijuana.95
Further, the intense, profit-driven
competition between drug cartels to
supply drugs, including marijuana, to
millions of American consumers has
left tens of thousands of Mexicans
dead. Between 2006 and 2012 alone,
there were approximately 60,000 drugrelated deaths in Mexico.96 The United
States could curtail its role in causing
such violence by ending marijuana
prohibition, not to mention end its role
in such violence by repealing drug
prohibition altogether.

America’s hyper­
criminalization of
people who use,
possess, and sell drugs
and its insistence
that the solution
can be found in the
criminal justice system
has resulted in the
abandonment of public
health solutions.

America should abandon its hyper-criminalization of people who use, possess, and sell
drugs and its insistence that drug use and abuse can and should be addressed within

91
See Mexico Under Siege: The Drug War at Our Doorstep for a series of news stories covering the drug war in Mexico. L.A. TIMES, last

updated Feb. 27, 2013, http://projects.latimes.com/mexico-drug-war/#/its-a-war (last visited Mar. 25, 2013).

92
Just weeks after President Nixon gave his war on drugs speech in 1969, the United States launched Operation Intercept, a

massive action involving inspection of vehicles and people crossing the Mexican border, in order to reduce drug trafficking, but it

caused so much disruption that it had to be scaled back only two weeks later. ZEDILLO & WHEELER, supra note 79, at 11. See also Kate

Doyle, Operation Intercept: The Perils of Unilateralism, THE NAT’L SECURITY ARCHIVE (April 13, 2003), http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/

NSAEBB86/#article.

93
See Thirty Years, supra note 81.

94
See Drug Trafficking Violence in Mexico: Implications for the United States: Testimony, FED. BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (May 5, 2010), http://

www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/drug-trafficking-violence-in-mexico-implications-for-the-united-states (last visited April 2, 2013).

95
See BEAU KILMER ET AL., RAND CORP., REDUCING DRUG TRAFFICKING REVENUES AND VIOLENCE IN MEXICO: WOULD LEGALIZING MARIJUANA IN

CALIFORNIA HELP? 33 (2010) [hereinafter KILMER ET AL.], available at http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2010/

RAND_OP325.pdf.

96
Nick Miroff & William Booth, Mexico’s Drug War is at a Stalemate as Calderón’s Presidency Ends, WASH. POST, Nov. 27, 2012, available 

at http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-11-27/world/35509536_1_drug-war-drug-violence-drug-fight.


90

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 the criminal justice system and instead recommit to alternative approaches to drug use
centered on public health solutions.97

B.

Broken Windows’ Broken Model

Law enforcement agencies have increasingly shifted their focus from traditional, reactive
policing strategies of responding to calls for service and investigation to preventive
policing strategies concentrating on low-level, quality-of-life offenses predominantly in
communities of color. Police departments have often employed aggressive stop, frisk,
and search tactics that bend if not flaunt the Fourth Amendment’s proscriptions. This
shift to preemtive policing has likely been a major contributor to the increase in arrests
for marijuana possession across the country, particularly in communities of color.
Beginning in the 1990s, police departments began cracking down on minor offenses
under the theory that such tactics would increase public safety and reduce violent crime.
This preventive crime-fighting phenomenon was precipitated by a highly influential
article in 1982 by criminologists James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling published in The
Atlantic Monthly, which introduced the now well-recognized “broken windows theory”
of crime.98 Broken windows posits that by addressing minor indicators of neighborhood
decay and disorder and cracking down on petty offenses, police will reduce serious
crime attracted and fueled by such disorder. The central premise of broken windows is
that the appearance of disorder begets actual disorder. Broken windows reframed visual
cues traditionally associated with economic and social disadvantage as signs of crime
and disorder.99 As one law professor points out, “[t]he orderliness of broken windows
policing may be an illusion of disorder.”100
97
See generally NAT’L INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE, U.S. DEP’T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, PRINCIPLES OF DRUG ADDICTION TREATMENT: A RESEARCH­
BASED GUIDE v-vi (rev. 2012), available at http://www.drugabuse.gov/sites/default/files/podat_1.pdf (describing drug addiction as a “brain
disease” that requires medical and rehabilitative treatment). Much of the political discourse surrounding drug policy improperly
conflates drug use with drug abuse. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) currently acknowledges that there is a
distinction between the two. While 5% of the world population uses drugs annually, a recent UNODC World Drug Report found that
only 0.6% of the world population engages in “problem drug use.” UNODC, WORLD DRUG REPORT 2012 61, fig.1 (2012), available at http://
www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/WDR2012/WDR_2012_web_small.pdf. An evaluation of countries that decriminalized
marijuana (the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, and Portugal) showed that removing or reducing the criminal penalties on possession
does not lead to a substantial increase in use. THOMAS F. BABOR, YALE CTR. FOR THE STUDY OF GLOBALIZATION, THE PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACT OF DRUG
POLICIES 76 (2012), available at http://www.ycsg.yale.edu/center/forms/public-health-impact73-84.pdf; see also Promoting a Public Health
Approach, HARM REDUCTION INT’L, http://www.ihra.net/promoting-a-public-health-approach (last visited Feb. 13, 2013).
98
George L. Kelling & James Q. Wilson, Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety, THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, Mar. 1982,
available at http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/broken-windows/304465/.
99
A study found that observed disorder predicts perceived disorder, but racial and economic context matter more. See generally
Robert J. Sampson & Stephen W. Raudenbush, Seeing Disorder: Neighborhood Stigma and the Social Construction of “Broken Windows”,
67 SOC’L PSYCHOL. Q. 319, 319 (2004), available at http://www.asanet.org/images/members/docs/pdf/featured/67401-sampson.pdf. Using
neighborhood surveys, census data, police records, and observational surveys of Chicago neighborhoods, the authors found that social
structure (concentration of minorities and poverty) is a more powerful predictor of perceived disorder than observed disorder. Id.
100 BERNARD E. HARCOURT, ILLUSION OF ORDER: THE FALSE PROMISE OF BROKEN WINDOWS POLICING 19 (2001) [hereinafter HARCOURT, ILLUSION OF ORDER]
(emphasis in original).

The Rise in Marijuana Possession Arrests

  91


 Broken windows policing provides
the theoretical framework for the
implementation of order-maintenance
policing strategies that focus on the
enforcement of low-level and “quality­
of-life” offenses. Wilson and Kelling
had called for the return to the ordermaintenance model of the 1960s, when
police maintained peace and order
within communities by focusing on both
physical disorder — repairing broken
windows and cleaning up abandoned
lots — and social disorder through non­
arrest interventions — communicating
with individuals, establishing trust and
rapport, and issuing warnings. But by the 1990s, as cities across the country adopted
a spate of anti-loitering and anti-gang laws and youth curfews aimed at maintaining
order, police departments began implementing distorted versions of Wilson and
Kelling’s model by increasing arrests for a slew of minor offenses.101 Rather than rely on
articulable, reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, an individual’s mere presence in
a particular area designated by authorities as “disorderly” increasingly served to justify
his or her detention and search. Under the pretext of maintaining “order” and wed to the
belief that racking up arrests for minor transgressions prevents more serious crime,
certain police departments have embraced a “zero-tolerance,” arrest-first approach
to low-level — and in some cases non-criminal — conduct, drastically increasing the

There are other policing
models, in which arrests
are last resorts, and that
embrace a problemsolving approach to
crime prevention that
addresses underlying
problems and provides
support services.

101 See, e.g., William J. Bratton, The New York City Police Department’s Civil Enforcement of Quality-of-Life Crimes, 3 J. L. & POL’Y 447,
448-50 & 463-64 (1995) (article by former New York City Police Commissioner who instituted quality-of-life enforcement program
expresses unabashed support for the “broken windows” thesis and also affirms his belief in community policing); Paul Scott Abbott,
Operation Clean Sweep: Depressed Community Both Applauds and Decries Cleanup By Police, SUN-SENTINEL, Mar. 8, 1996, available at http://
articles.sun-sentinel.com/1996-03-08/news/9603110142_1_cleanup-effort-liberia-arrests (Broward County sheriff’s deputy cites
“broken-window syndrome” in explaining the enforcement of public drinking law and similar misdemeanors); Ronald Brownstein,
Taming the Mean Streets, L.A. TIMES, May 4, 1994, available at http://articles.latimes.com/1994-05-04/news/mn-53670_1_city-streets
(“With this aggressive initiative to arrest a cycle of disorder in Five Oaks, Dayton [Ohio] joined a new urban policy movement that
has raised complex questions of rights, responsibilities and fairness from coast to coast.”); Edmund Mahony, Taking It to the Streets,
HARTFORD COURANT, Apr. 15, 1995, at A1, available at http://articles.courant.com/1995-04-15/news/9504150144_1_red-lights-loud-music­
police-chief-nicholas-pastore (describing how the police chief in Hartford, Connecticut, “has taken the broken-window theory to heart”);
Albert W. Alschuler & Stephen J. Schulhofer, Antiquated Procedures or Bedrock Rights? A Response to Professors Meares and Kahan, 1998
U. CHI. LEGAL F. 215, 233 (1998) (citing Michael Gillis & Fran Spielman, City’s Loitering Law Ruled Unconstitutional, CHI. SUN-TIMES, Dec. 19,
1995) (Chicago’s anti-loitering ordinance was ruled unconstitutional in 1995 after it was used to arrest 41,740 people and to disperse
43,457); Kimberly Garcia, Ordinance Aims to End Drug Deals, MILWAUKEE SENTINEL, Jan. 28, 1994, at 1A, available at http://news.google.
com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19940128&id=AKxRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_hIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3493,6931639 (reporting the passage of drug
loitering statute in Milwaukee); John Rivera, Loitering Bill with $1,000 Fine Targets Brooklyn Park Prostitution, BALTIMORE SUN, Jan. 4, 1994,
available at http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1994-01-04/news/1994004069_1_arrest-prostitutes-brooklyn-park-ritchie (reporting 1994
enactment of anti-loitering bill to discourage prostitution in Baltimore’s Brooklyn Park by imposing a $1,000 fine).

92

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 number of street stops, frisks, and searches, primarily of young persons of color.102 As a
result, police have dragged hundreds of thousands of individuals into the criminal justice
system for minor, nonviolent offenses, including, often, marijuana possession.
Nowhere has this arrest-happy approach been more highly publicized, or more fervently
embraced, than in New York City. In 1994, New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and
Police Commissioner William Bratton implemented an order-maintenance policing
strategy emphasizing the proactive and aggressive selective enforcement of “quality­
of-life” offenses.103 The NYPD’s quality-of-life initiative was accompanied by practices
that included the proliferation of anti-crime units, such as the Street Crimes Unit, which
was disbanded in 2002 after its members fatally shot unarmed Amadou Diallo.104 The
initiative ramped up use of stop, question, frisk, and search practices, and increased
arrests for minor offenses.105 Specifically, Bratton:
[R]etooled New York City’s drug enforcement effort to target more muscle toward
low- and middle-level dealers, and he lifted a longstanding police policy that
discouraged drug enforcement arrests by patrol officers — freeing them to seek
warrants, make narcotics arrests, and go after those they suspected of drug dealing
for quality-of-life violations to sweep them off the streets and into the jails.106
Under its zero-tolerance policy, the NYPD detained thousands of individuals for
nonviolent offenses. In 1991, the NYPD made 44,209 stops;107 by 2010, the number of
stops rose to a staggering 601,285.108 Of the 685,724 people stopped by the NYPD in 2011,

102 For instance, there were 685,724 stops made in 2011 by the New York Police Department, of which young Black and Latino

men made up 41.6% despite representing only 4.7% of the city’s population. NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, STOP-AND-FRISK 2011: 

NYCLU BRIEFING, 2 (2012) [hereinafter NYCLU BRIEFING], available at http://www.nyclu.org/files/publications/NYCLU_2011_Stop-and­
Frisk_Report.pdf. In Los Angeles, street stops doubled between 2002 and 2008 to 244,038; 30% of those stops resulted in arrests in

2008. Colleen Long, Stop and Frisk: Police Stop More than 1 Million People on the Street, HUFFINGTON POST (Oct. 8, 2009, 10:13 PM), http://

www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/08/stop-and-frisk-police-sto_n_314509.html. Statistics for stop and frisks for other large police

departments in cities such as Boston, Chicago, and New Orleans are unavailable because the departments do not release the statistics

or claim that they do not keep the data.

103 HARCOURT, ILLUSION OF ORDER, supra note 100, at 1.

104 See William K. Rashbaum & Al Baker, Police Commissioner Closing Controversial Street Crime Unit, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 10, 2002,

available at http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/10/nyregion/police-commissioner-closing-controversial-street-crime-unit.html.

105 See Clifford Krauss, Efforts on Quality of life in Village a Success, the Police Say, N.Y. TIMES, June 24, 1994, available at http://www.

nytimes.com/1994/06/24/nyregion/efforts-on-quality-of-life-in-village-a-success-the-police-say.html (noting increased summonses

in Greenwich Village for minor offenses such as graffiti vandalism and unlicensed vending); Bob Herbert, Op-Ed, Jim Crow Policing,

N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 1, 2010, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/opinion/02herbert.html (describing the overuse of stops by the

NYPD as tool of racial harassment). For an overview of stop, question, and frisk practices in New York City see DR. DELORES JONES-BROWN, 

JASPREET GILL & JENNIFER TRONE, CTR. ON RACE, CRIME, AND JUST. AT JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIM. JUST., STOP, QUESTION & FRISK POLICING PRACTICES IN NEW

YORK CITY: A PRIMER (2010), available at http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/web_images/PRIMER_electronic_version.pdf.

106 Judith A. Greene, Zero Tolerance: A Case Study of Police Policies and Practices in New York City, 45 CRIME & DELINQUENCY 171, 175

(1999), available at http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/ZeroNYC.htm.

107 U.S. COMM’N ON CIVIL RIGHTS, POLICE PRACTICES AND CIVIL RIGHTS IN NEW YORK CITY, ch.5, n.63 (Aug. 2000), available at http://www.usccr.gov/

pubs/nypolice/ch5.htm.

108 Stop-and-Frisk Data, NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data (last visited Feb. 14, 2013).


The Rise in Marijuana Possession Arrests

  93


 605,328 — or about 88% — were innocent of any crime.109 Eighty-seven percent of the
people stopped were Black or Latino,110 even though whites stopped were twice more
likely to be found with a weapon.111
The increase in racially biased stops and
searches was mirrored by the increase in, and
racial disparities among, marijuana arrests.
In 1991, the NYPD made approximately 774
marijuana arrests;112 just one year after the
zero-tolerance policy took effect, the number
of marijuana possession arrests increased
82% to 5,716.113 By 2010, the NYPD made over
59,000 marijuana arrests, making New York
City the marijuana arrest capital of the country.
The racial disparities in these arrests are as
jarring as their overall number. In Kings County
(Brooklyn), the white arrest rate for marijuana
possession was 161 per 100,000, the Latino
arrest rate was 717 per 100,000, and the Black arrest rate was 1,554 per 100,000. In
the Bronx, per 100,000, the arrest rate was 324 for whites, 892 for Latinos, and 1,640
for Blacks. In New York County (Manhattan), while the white marijuana possession
arrest rate was 208, the Latino and Black arrest rates were a staggering 999 and 1,952,
respectively. See Appendix Figure A1.

Using the number
of arrests as a
performance metric
necessarily creates
pressure, and
incentives, for police
to generate high
numbers of arrests.

The NYPD attributes New York City’s dramatic drop in crime to these aggressive
enforcement tactics, but this cause-and-effect claim is controversial and much disputed.
When Mayor Rudolph Giuliani took office in 1994, violent crime in New York City had
already dropped 12% since 1990.114 Though New York City’s crime decrease was
109 See NYCLU BRIEFING, supra note 102, at 15; see also Sean Gardiner, Stop-and-Frisks Hit Record in 2011, WALL STREET J., Feb. 14, 2012

[hereinafter Gardiner, Stop-and-Frisks], available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204795304577221770752633612.

html.

110 See Gardiner, Stop-and-Frisks, supra note 109.

111 Christopher Mathias, NYPD Stop and Frisks: 15 Shocking Facts About a Controversial Program, HUFFINGTON POST (May 15, 2012, 1:54

PM), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/13/nypd-stop-and-frisks-15-shocking-facts_n_1513362.html. The higher “hit rate” for

whites could be the result of police being more likely to have reasonable suspicion that a criminal activity is afoot when stopping whites

as opposed to relying more on an individual’s race, appearance, and/or neighborhood surroundings in deciding to detain a person of

color.

112 New York City Marijuana Possession Arrests 1978-2011, MARIJUANA ARREST PROJECT, http://www.marijuana-arrests.com/graph8.html

(last visited Feb. 25, 2013).

113 See Harry G. Levine, New York City’s Marijuana Arrest Crusade Continues 3 (2009), available at http://marijuana-arrests.com/docs/

NYC-MARIJUANA-ARREST-CRUSADE-CONTINUES-SEPT-2009.pdf.

114 The crime rate declined at a steady rate pre- and post-1994. COMPSTAT and Mayor Giuliani’s quality-of-life initiative, often

credited with New York City’s crime drop, began around 1994. From 1990 to 1994, violent crime and property crime had already been

declining. David F. Greenberg, Studying New York City’s Crime Decline: Methodological Issues, JUST. Q. 11 (2013) [hereinafter Greenberg].

Had COMPSTAT or aggressive policing been the cause of the continued decline, the rate of decline would have sharpened after 1994.

See id. at 11 & 29.


94

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 particularly pronounced, over the past 20 years rates of serious crime dropped in cities
nationwide, including many that did not resort to the same wide-sweeping stop, frisk,
and search police tactics. Criminologists and economists have posited many theories as
to the factors that may have contributed to the decrease in crime in New York City and
nationwide, including a stronger economy, an increased number of police officers on
the street, gun control programs, the legalization of abortion and declining birth rates,
the waning popularity of crack cocaine, and even — though perhaps most statistically
compelling — the levels of exposure to atmospheric lead.115 Further, a recent study
examining New York City’s crime decline found no evidence that misdemeanor arrests
reduced homicide,116 robbery, or aggravated assault rates.117
Nationwide, there is no clear correlation between an increase in arrests for marijuana
possession and a decrease in crime. As indicated in the FBI/UCR Program, crime rates
have increased in 38% of all counties since 1995. Within these counties, marijuana
possession arrests were more likely to have increased than decreased. On the other
hand, crime rates have decreased in 62% of all counties since 1995, and within these
115 See, e.g., K. Babe Howell, Broken Lives from Broken Windows: The Hidden Costs of Aggressive Order-Maintenance Policing, 33 N.Y.U.
REV. OF L. & SOC. CHANGE 271, 278 (2009), available at http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv3/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__journals__
review_of_law_and_social_change/documents/documents/ecm_pro_065175.pdf (noting that the drop in crime began before zerotolerance policies or other significant order-maintenance policing was adopted in New York City, citing factors such as getting guns off
the street and increasing the number of police officers); Steven D. Levitt, Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that
Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not, 18 J. OF ECON. PERSPECTIVES 163 (2004), available at http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/
LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf (attributing drop in crime to increased number of police, decreased use of crack, increased
incarceration, and legalized abortion; and discounting policing strategies such as order-maintenance because crime dropped in both
cities that adopted these strategies and cities that did not); Kevin Drum, America’s Real Crime Element: Lead, MOTHER JONES, Jan. 2013,
available at http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline (attributing increases and decreases in crime
rates to lead exposure); Bill Dixon, Zero Tolerance: The Hard Edge of Community Policing, 9 AFR’N. SEC. REV. no.3 (2000):
The managerial and other changes made in the NYPD by Bratton … including the recruitment of 7000 additional police
officers — make it impossible to attribute any crime reduction effects … to the introduction of order maintenance policing
alone. What is more, crime also fell in 17 out of 25 of the largest US cities between 1993 and 1996. Among these 17 were
places such as San Diego where vastly different policies of problem-oriented “neighbourhood policing” were implemented
and Oakland where no significant change in strategy occurred at all.
Bernard Harcourt and Jens Ludwig analyzed the changes in total misdemeanor arrests within New York City precincts from 1989
to 1998 against changes in violent crime only, and found that “if anything, increases in misdemeanor arrests were accompanied by
increases in violent crime.” Bernard E. Harcourt & Jens Ludwig, Reefer Madness: Broken Windows Policing and Misdemeanor Marijuana
Arrests in New York City, 1989-2000 173 (U. of Chi. L. & Econ., Working Paper No. 317, 2007), available at http://www.econ.brown.edu/
fac/glenn_loury/louryhomepage/teaching/Ec%20222/marijuana-arrests-Ludwig.pdf.
116 Since Mayor Michael Bloomberg took office, the number of shooting victims has remained constant over the past decade;
according to NYPD and city statistics, 1,892 people were shot in 2002, 1,821 in 2011. Murray Weiss, Stop-and-Frisks Have Done Little to
Reduce Shootings, NYPD Data Show, DNAINFO.COM (June 5, 2012, 8:25 AM), http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120605/new-york-city/
stop-and-frisks-have-done-little-reduce-shootings-nypd-data-shows. The NYPD also claims its zero-tolerance approach to low-level
offenses has been effective in removing illegal guns from the street. However, of the 685,724 stops carried out by the NYPD in 2011, only
about one in every 3,000 (or .03%) resulted in the recovery of a gun. New NYCLU Report Finds NYPD Stop-and-Frisk Practices Ineffective;
Reveals Depth of Racial Disparities, NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (May 9, 2012), http://www.nyclu.org/news/new-nyclu-report-finds­
nypd-stop-and-frisk-practices-ineffective-reveals-depth-of-racial-dispar. While stops have continued to increase in the past few years,
the number of guns recovered through stop and frisk has decreased. See Murray Weiss, Stop-and-Frisks Fail to Pull More Guns Off the
Streets, NYPD Stats Show, DNAINFO.COM (Aug. 13, 2012, 6:35 AM), http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120813/new-york-city/stop-and­
frisks-fail-pull-more-guns-off-street-nypd-data-shows.
117 See Greenberg, supra note 114, at 1, 7 & 28. Further, the study notes that a crime drop occurred in many American cities as well
as other countries from 1988 to 2001, a global pattern that “implicates national and international trends that may have occurred more
strongly in some cities than in others.” See id. at 12.

The Rise in Marijuana Possession Arrests

  95


 counties, marijuana possession arrest rates were somewhat more likely to have
increased than decreased. See Table 14.
TABLE 14

Counties Categorized by Changes in Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates

and Violent Crime Rates (1995-2010)

Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates
Violent Crime Rates

Increased Since 1995

Decreased Since 1995

549 (23.36%)
895 (38.09%)

352 (14.98%)
554 (23.57%)

Increased Since 1995
Decreased Since 1995

Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data

More tellingly, however, this data reveals that the likelihood that violent crime increased
or decreased was the same in counties where marijuana possession arrests increased
as in counties where such arrests decreased. See Table 15.
TABLE 15

In Counties in which
Marijuana Possession Arrest
Rates Have INCREASED
Since 1995 is:
In Counties in which
Marijuana Possession Arrest
Rates Have DECREASED
Since 1995 is:

The Likelihood that Violent
Crimes Rates INCREASED
Since 1995

The Likelihood that Violent
Crimes Rates DECREASED
Since 1995

38.02% (=

549
)
549+895

61.98% (=

895
)
549+895

38.85% (=

352
)
352+554

61.15% (=

554
)
352+554

These results show that movements in marijuana possession arrests are uncorrelated
with movements in crime rates.118
118 Indeed, a study in New York City found that the large numbers of people the NYPD arrests for misdemeanor marijuana
possession—disproportionately young people of color—do not subsequently engage in violent crime. See ISSA KOHLER-HAUSSMAN
& JAMIE FELLNER, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, A RED HERRING: MARIJUANA ARRESTEES DO NOT BECOME VIOLENT FELONS (2012),
available at http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us_mj1112webwcover.pdf (tracking 30,000 people without prior criminal
convictions who were arrested in 2003 and 2004 for marijuana possession, and finding that during the six-and-a-half to eight-and-a-half
years that the research covered, 90% (26,315) had no subsequent felony convictions of any kind, and only 3.1% (or 1,022 persons out of
nearly 30,000) were subsequently convicted of one violent felony offense). Indeed, marijuana prohibition likely increases gun violence.
Because of the profits that a prohibited substance can yield, “[a] Black market route for drugs can become a Black market route for
guns.” Emily Crockett, How Ending the War on Drugs Could Curb Gun Violence, CAMPUS PROGRESS, CTR. FOR AM. PROGRESS, Feb. 4, 2013 (quoting
Trevor Burrus, research fellow with the Cato Institute), http://campusprogress.org/articles/how_ending_the_war_on_drugs_could_
curb_gun_violence/ (last visited Feb. 15, 2013). A comprehensive review of all existing scientific research conducted by the International
Centre for Science in Drug Policy similarly concluded that the “evidence suggests that drug related violence and high homicide rates
are likely a natural consequence of drug prohibition and that increasingly sophisticated and well-resourced methods of disrupting drug
distribution networks may unintentionally increase violence.” WERB ET AL., infra note 146, at 5-6.

96

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 There are other policing models — including certain forms of community- and
problem-oriented policing — that use arrests as last resorts; embrace an approach to
crime prevention in which law enforcement works with social services agencies and
community-based organizations to address underlying problems and provide support
services such as after-school programs or job training; collaborate with community
members, the private sector, and public agencies to enhance public safety; and improve
relations and foster trust between communities and police.119
But under the common refrain of maintaining “order” and improving “quality-of­
life,” many cities nationwide have subscribed to some form of broken windows and
shifted their policing priorities toward the aggressive enforcement of minor offenses.
Milwaukee implemented zero-tolerance broken windows policing beginning in 1996.120
Boston announced a crackdown on misdemeanor offenses in 2006, which the Police
Commissioner explained was part of the city’s longstanding belief in broken windows
policing.121 In 2007, Denver Police implemented broken windows policing in the ColeWhittier neighborhoods, which was quickly denounced by residents and community
leaders as targeting the poor and people of color.122 Across the country, it would appear
that these strategies have contributed to the overall rise in misdemeanor arrests, and
specifically to the racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests. It is time to pick up
the pieces of broken windows policing.

119 See Debra Livingston, Police Discretion and the Quality of Life in Public Places: Courts, Communities, and the New Policing, 97 COLUM.
L. REV. 551, 583-84 (1997). According to the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, problem-oriented policing focuses on “new responses
that are preventive in nature, that are not dependent on the use of the criminal justice system, and that engage other public agencies,
the community and the private sector when their involvement has the potential for significantly contributing to the reduction of the
problem.” What is POP?, CTR. FOR PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING, http://www.popcenter.org/about/?p=whatiscpop (last visited Mar. 1, 2013). See
generally PETER K. MANNING, DEMOCRATIC POLICING IN A CHANGING WORLD 158-162 (2010) (discussing the failures of modern policing models that
shifted away from detective work and engaging with the community to solve crimes, which had traditionally been an important source of
citizen contact in disadvantaged communities).
120 Arthur L. Jones, 1996-2003, MILWAUKEE POLICE DEP’T, http://city.milwaukee.gov/Police/ArthurJones.htm (last visited Feb. 14, 2013).
While marijuana arrests in Milwaukee decreased by 25% in 2004 and then increased by over 100% in 2005, (see FBI/Uniform Crime
Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data (2004) & (2005)), the number of homicides followed the opposite trend, reaching their
lowest in years in 2004 and then rising by 40% in 2005, one of the largest increases in the country. See Kathleen Kingsbury, Middle
America’s Crime Wave, Time Mag., Dec. 3, 2006, available at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1565527,00.html.
121 Daniel Brook, The Cracks in ‘Broken Windows’, BOSTON GLOBE, Feb. 19, 2006, available at http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/
articles/2006/02/19/the_cracks_in_broken_windows/?page=full. That year, marijuana arrests increased tenfold in Suffolk County
(Boston makes up 86% of Suffolk County’s population). FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data (2005) &
(2006). The following year Boston created its Safe Streets Teams under the “community policing” philosophy to address quality-of-life
issues and as a crime deterrent; marijuana arrest rates remained constant. Initiatives, CITY OF BOSTON, http://www.cityofboston.gov/
police/about/initiatives.asp (last visited Feb. 14, 2013). Not surprisingly, when Massachusetts decriminalized marijuana in 2009, the
entire state, including Boston, experienced a dramatic drop in marijuana arrests. See Figure 26.
122 Felisa Cardona, Denver Police Efforts Draw Protests, DENVER POST (Mar. 11, 2007, 1:00AM), http://www.denverpost.com/
newsheadlines/ci-5637386.

The Rise in Marijuana Possession Arrests

  97


 C. The

Incentives Behind Making
Marijuana Arrests

i. COMPSTAT Performance Measures: Targeting Communities,
Rewarding Arrests
Order-maintenance policing reorients police toward the crackdown of minor offenses,
but use of COMPSTAT, short for “computer statistics” or “comparative statistics,” has
further incentivized some police departments to carry out this crime prevention strategy.
Introduced to the NYPD in 1994 by Police Commissioner Bill Bratton and based on a
simpler model used by the New York City Transit Police known as Charts of the Future,
COMPSTAT is a technological and management system combining police department
crime data123 and geographic information with police accountability, purportedly to
enable police departments to identify and address specific crime problems quickly
and efficiently.124 COMPSTAT monitors crime patterns by location, resulting in the
deployment of police resources to specific areas and neighborhoods. COMPSTAT’s
accountability system requires precinct commanders to answer for crime rates in their
jurisdictions at twice-weekly “Crime-Control Strategy Meetings” with department
heads.125 One significant data point by which a police department measures precinct
performance is arrest numbers.126 Using the number of arrests as a performance metric
necessarily creates pressure, and incentives, for police to generate high numbers of
arrests. Higher arrest numbers are easier to obtain by focusing on nonviolent, low-level
offenses, which require far less time and resources (including less experienced officers)

123 The fact that police departments rely on their own data collection and entry when they use COMPSTAT has raised questions
about the accuracy and reliability of COMPSTAT programs. For example, four Florida police agencies discontinued their programs
because of data inaccuracy. See Janet. E. Hartman, COMPSTAT Within a State-Wide Law Enforcement Agency: Applying New York City Police
Department’s Success to The Florida Department of Environmental Protection 4-5 (2009), available at http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/
getdoc/8287f764-9d1a-47e3-bd38-27f424077e5b/Hartman-Janet-Research-Paper-pdf.aspx.
124 See DAVID WEISBURD ET AL., POLICE FOUND. REPORTS, THE GROWTH OF COMPSTAT IN AMERICAN POLICING 2 (2004) [hereinafter WEISBURD, GROWTH
OF COMPSTAT], available at www.lapdonline.org/inside_the_lapd/pdf_view/6247; Eric Jenner, Computer-Based Crime-Fighting, From the
Ground Up, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 12, 1997, available at http://partners.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/121297police.html (last visited Feb. 14,
2013) (describing COMPSTAT’s growth from a handwritten mapping system to a computerized program).
125 WEISBURD, GROWTH OF COMPSTAT, supra note 124, at 2. At such meetings crime statistics are projected on overhead screens,
electronic maps are generated to show where crime is occurring, and the hour of the day and crime spike analyses are presented. Id.
126 Id., supra note 124, at 3.

98

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 than the longer, intensive investigations required to make arrests for many serious
offenses.127
Thus, while COMPSTAT itself does not call for the aggressive enforcement of low-level
offenses,128 when used by police departments employing a form of broken windows,
it can encourage the aggressive and frequent enforcement of low-level offenses and
minor infractions by calling for heavy police resources in areas designated as crime
hot spots. One study found that COMPSTAT departments were significantly more likely
to increase arrests for targeted offenders.129 The NYPD’s use of COMPSTAT intensified
New York City’s quality-of-life initiative by encouraging precinct commanders to enforce
laws for minor offenses and pressuring officers to increase arrests in designated
areas.130 Indeed, both immediately following and in the years after the implementation of
COMPSTAT in New York City, arrests for minor offenses, including marijuana possession,
have risen significantly in poor communities of color.131
127

Professor and former NYPD Captain John Eterno has been one of the most vocal critics of New York City’s use of COMPSTAT:
Eighteen years after the start of the much-vaunted COMPSTAT system of data-driven crime fighting … precinct commanders
are pitted against one another and officers are challenged to match or exceed what they did the previous year, month and
week. Words like “productivity” are code for quotas. Supervisors must exceed last year’s “productivity” — regardless of
community conditions, available budget and personnel, and, most important, the consequences to citizens.

John A. Eterno, Op-Ed, Policing By the Numbers, N.Y. TIMES, June 17, 2012, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/18/opinion/
the-nypds-obsession-with-numbers.html.
128 See WEISBURD, GROWTH OF COMPSTAT, supra note 124, at 2.
129 David Weisburd et al., Reforming to Preserve: COMPSTAT & Strategic Problem Solving in American Policing, CRIMINOLOGY & PUB. POL’Y
421, 443, tbl.8-C (Jan. 2002) [hereinafter Weisburd, Reforming to Preserve].
130 WEISBURD, GROWTH OF COMPSTAT, supra note 124, at 2; Weisburd, Reforming to Preserve, supra note 129, at 425 (discussing
the Police Commissioner’s creation of COMPSTAT as intended to make the organization responsive to leadership). While the NYPD
vehemently denies the use of arrest quotas, the Department admits that officers have “performance goals” that they are expected to
meet. Al Baker & Ray Rivera, Secret Tape Has Police Pressing Ticket Quotas, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 9, 2010, available at http://www.nytimes.
com/2010/09/10/nyregion/10quotas.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. Police officers who have exposed the NYPD’s quota system have
explained that terms such as “performance measures” or “productivity” are code for quotas, a system in which police are mandated to
increase arrest numbers. See id.; see also Ryan Devereaux, ‘We Were Handcuffing Kids For No Reason’: Stop-and-Frisk Goes on Trial, THE
NATION, March 28, 2013, available at http://www.thenation.com/article/173565/we-were-handcuffing-kids-no-reason-stop-and-frisk­
goes-trial#:
‘There came a point in time in 2009 where they came very hard with the quotas. They call it productivity.’ [Active-duty officer
Adhyl] Polanco testified. Every day, he and his fellow officers would return from patrol, report to their platoon commander, ‘and
specifically tell him what we had done for that night. They will never question the quality,’ he added. ‘They will question the
quantity … How we got them, they don’t really care about.’
See also Marina Carver, NYPD Officers Say They Had Stop-and-Frisk Quotas, CNN JUSTICE, March 26, 2013, available at http://www.cnn.
com/2013/03/22/justice/new-york-stop-and-frisk-trial; Graham Rayman, The NYPD Tapes: Inside Bed-Stuy’s 81st Precinct, VILLAGE VOICE,
May 4, 2010, available at http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-05-04/news/the-nypd-tapes-inside-bed-stuy-s-81st-precinct (exposing how
police officers are threatened by bosses if they do not make their arrest and stop and frisk quotas, after an eight-year police veteran
secretly taped his superiors). In 2006, a New York jury awarded a woman punitive damages for her arrest, finding that “the number of
arrests officers were to make violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights and contributed to her arrest.” Oren Yaniv, Court Rules that Cops
Do Use Quotas; Woman Injured in 2006 Arrest Settles for $75,000, N.Y. DAILY NEWS, Feb. 19, 2011, available at http://articles.nydailynews.
com/2011-02-19/news/28631245_1_arrest-numbers-quota-decision-false-arrest.
131 Before 1995, the NYPD was averaging 2,300 marijuana arrests per year; since then the Department has averaged 36,000
marijuana arrests per year. HARRY LEVINE & LOREN SIEGEL, DRUG POLICY ALLIANCE, $75 MILLION A YEAR: THE COST OF NEW YORK CITY’S MARIJUANA
POSSESSION ARRESTS 4 (Mar. 2011), available at http://marijuana-arrests.com/docs/75-Million-A-Year.pdf.

The Rise in Marijuana Possession Arrests

  99


 A few years after New York’s COMPSTAT program gained wide-scale publicity between
1997 and 1998, there was a noticeable increase in the implementation of COMPSTAT or
similar programs by police departments in a number of major cities.132 By 2002, at least
72 police departments in the South, West, Northeast, and North Central regions of the
country visited the NYPD to learn more about COMPSTAT.133
Police departments’ use of COMPSTAT, specifically the importance placed on arrest data
and measuring police effectiveness by arrest volume in targeted communities, coupled
with aggressive stop-and-search operations in designated neighborhoods, has likely
contributed to the significant increase in the enforcement of low-level offenses, and thus
has likely been a major contributor to the skyrocketing number of marijuana arrests in
communities of color.

ii. The Inclusion of Misdemeanor Drug Arrests in Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant’s Performance Measures
The drug war is sustained in part by powerful private and public entities that reap
handsome profits from large-scale rates of arrests and incarceration, and are thus
determined to continue the War on Drugs despite its failure and terrible toll on the
community.134
One financial mechanism funding the drug war and its accompanying policing
strategies is a federal funding program called the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant
132 Weisburd, Reforming to Preserve, supra note 129, at 432. Law enforcement agencies that implemented COMPSTAT or similar
programs include the Lee County Sheriff’s Office in Florida, the Chicago Police Department, the Los Angeles Police Department, the
Newark Police Department, the San Francisco Police Department, and the New Haven Police. See EDWARD TAMAYO, LEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE, IMPLEMENTING ACCOUNTABILITY AT THE LEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, available at http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/b22786b9­
e80d-4386-a5a4-1d0e9acdff11/Tamayo-edward-paper-pdf.aspx; WESLEY G. SKOGAN & LYNN STEINER, THE CHI. COMMUNITY POLICING EVALUATION
CONSORTIUM, CAPS AT TEN: COMMUNITY POLICING IN CHICAGO 1 (2004), available at https://portal.chicagopolice.org/i/cpd/clearpath/Caps10.
pdf; George Gascon, COMPSTAT Plus, LOS ANGELES POLICE DEP’T, http://www.lapdonline.org/inside_the_lapd/content_basic_view/6364;
Whet Moser, Meet Garry McCarthy Chicago’s New Top Cop, CHICAGO MAG., (May 2, 2011, 4:57PM), http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago­
Magazine/The-312/May-2011/Meet-Garry-McCarthy-Chicago-s-New-Top-Cop/; COMPSTAT Policing in San Francisco, S.F. POLICE DEP’T,
http://www.sf-police.org/index.aspx?page=3254 (last visited Feb. 14, 2012); James Lu, Esserman Brings “COMPSTAT” to NHPD, YALE DAILY
NEWS, Feb. 8, 2012, available at http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2012/02/08/esserman-brings-COMPSTAT-to-nhpd/. In 2000, the new
Police Commissioner of Baltimore, Edward T. Norris, introduced a NYPD-style COMPSTAT to the city. JOHN A. ETERNO & ELI B. SILVERMAN,
THE CRIME NUMBERS GAME: MANAGEMENT BY MANIPULATION 228 (2012). Coupled with aggressive zero-tolerance enforcement of quality-of-life
offenses, the Baltimore Police Department was ultimately sued in 2006 for routine arrests without probable cause. Id. A settlement
agreement was reached that included “establishing policies to handle properly Quality of Life violations, trainings, tracking compliance,
and having effective oversight.” Id. Philadelphia, New Orleans, and Newark also emulated the COMPSTAT process, and every one of
these cities has come under investigation or court monitoring for civil rights violations. Id. at 229.
133 See WEISBURD, GROWTH OF COMPSTAT, supra note 124, at 11, fig.5; Weisburd, Reforming to Preserve, supra note 129, at 431.
134 For instance, the private prison industry has prospered immensely from the incarceration epidemic, and hence from the drug
war; in 1990, there were 7,000 people incarcerated in private prisons. By 2009, the population had increased by 1,664% to 129,336,
making the private prison industry a $3-billion-a-year business. DAVID SHAPIRO, ACLU, BANKING ON BONDAGE: PRIVATE PRISONS AND MASS
INCARCERATION 11, 13 (2011), available at http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/bankingonbondage_20111102.pdf (providing a comprehensive
overview of the growth of the private prison industry and how its business model is dependent on mass incarceration and the creation of
more prison beds).

100

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 (JAG) program. Established in 1988, the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law
Enforcement Assistance Program provides states and local units of government with
funding to improve the functioning of their criminal justice system and to enforce drug
laws.135 Under what is now called the Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG), each
state is required to develop a statewide strategy for their criminal justice systems,
focusing specifically on drug trafficking, violent crime, and serious offenders. There
are seven general program areas for which funding can be used: 1) law enforcement;
2) prosecution and courts; 3) crime prevention and education; 4) corrections and
community corrections; 5) drug treatment and enforcement; 6) planning, evaluation, and
technology improvement; and 7) crime victim and witness. However, of the half a billion
dollars spent every year on average in jurisdictions across the country through the Byrne
JAG Program, over 50% is used to fund law enforcement activities.136
Law enforcement agencies can apply for JAG funds from two sources: either directly
through the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), or through each state’s administering
agency, which applies for grants from the BJA and then awards subgrants to local
law enforcement agencies. In so doing, law enforcement agencies must set forth
their project goals, objectives, and performance measures. As one state Attorney
General explained to prospective grantees, “objectives must be clearly expressed and
in measurable terms. … Example: Increase the number of drug-related arrests by 10
percent . … [An example of] Performance Measures [are]: Number of drug-related
arrests [for a given year].”137 Local law enforcement agencies, whether they receive
direct funds or subgrants, are required to submit quantitative quarterly performance
135 The Byrne Grant programs were authorized by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. 21 USC § 1501, P. L. No. 100-690 (1988). The
original Byrne Grant programs had two components, a formula grant program (Byrne Formula Grant program) and a discretionary
grant program (Byrne Discretionary Grant program). Funds awarded to states under the Byrne Formula Grant program were to be
used to provide personnel, equipment, training, technical assistance, and information systems for more widespread apprehension,
prosecution, adjudication, detention, and rehabilitation of offenders who violate state and local laws. Grant funds could also be used to
provide assistance to victims of crime. The Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program (LLEBG) is another formula grant program
that was authorized by Congress in 1995. The LLEBG program was established under the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and
Appropriations. P.L. 104–134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). The purpose of the LLEBG program was to provide units of local government with
federal grant funds so they could either hire police officers or create programs that would combat crime and increase public safety. In
2005, Congress combined the Byrne Grant program with the LLEBG into the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program
(JAG) to streamline the application process for the states.
136 NAT’L CRIM. JUST. ASS’N, BUREAU OF JUST. ASSISTANCE, CORNERSTONE FOR JUSTICE: BYRNE JAG AND ITS IMPACT ON THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 2
(2011), available at https://www.bja.gov/Publications/NCJA_JAGReport.pdf.
137 Office of Att’y General of North Dakota, Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program for Drug
and Violent Crime Control Initiatives: Program Guidelines and Application Kit 14 (2004), available at www.ag.state.nd.us/bci/grants/
byrne/Application.pdf. (emphasis omitted). Similarly, the application instructions for Byrne grant funding from the State of Louisiana
Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Criminal Justice states that “[m]easurable objectives use the words ‘to
increase,’ ‘to decrease,’ or ‘to maintain.’ … These are activity statements. Once the objectives are written, ask, ‘Does the statement
allow you to measure something?’ The number that will be increased, decreased or maintained directly relates to the baseline
statistics.” The Commission gives the following example: “To increase the number of drug arrests from 300 to 350 within the twelve
month period.” Regarding “Prior Results” for continuing projects, the Commission notes: “Applications for continuation funding must
describe the program’s activities and accomplishments to date. This should include a summary of the previous funding project’s
activities such as, the number of arrests, drugs seized, the recidivism rate, policies and/or products developed, and data concerning the
project’s progress up to the time of application in meeting its goals.” LOUISIANA COMM’N ON LAW ENFORCEMENT & THE ADMIN. OF CRIMINAL JUST.,
EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL/JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS 13-14 (July 2010), available at http://www.lcle.la.gov/
programs%5Cuploads%5CByrne%5CByrne_JAG_App_Instruct_rev_072010.pdf.

The Rise in Marijuana Possession Arrests

  101


 measure reports, quarterly Federal Financial Status Reports, and quantitative and
qualitative annual programmatic performance reports.138 Indeed, along with reporting
the number of investigations and prosecutions, agencies receiving funds for law
enforcement purposes are required to report the total number of arrests as part of
their “performance measures.”139 JAG does not restrict the categories of arrests in
its performance measures to felonies or serious drug cases. Rather, all drug arrests,
including misdemeanors (such as for marijuana possession), must be reported to
the BJA as a condition of receiving federal funds.140 Because JAG does not limit the
categories of arrests in its performance measures to felony arrests, or arrests for more
serious drug offenses — as one would expect given the program’s original purpose
of fighting serious, violent drug crime — police agencies are able to increase their
productivity numbers by including arrests for mere possession, including marijuana
possession. When submitting annual reports to the BJA, law enforcement agencies
may improve the likelihood of receiving federal grants by measuring performance
through the enforcement of low-level offenses, and thus perhaps demonstrating the
“effectiveness” of BJA-funded activity. Thus, although JAG funding was initially designed
to address major drug crime, by linking police budgets to drug law enforcement
and including the number of drug arrests in states’ and law enforcement agencies’
productivity assessments, the Byrne Grant system enables — and, indeed, likely
incentivizes — police departments to increase arrests for low-level drug possession.
Indeed, in a civil rights lawsuit brought in the early 1990s against members of a Byrne­
funded task force, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals provided a disturbing description of
how police agencies’ dependence on federal funding drives them to generate high arrest
numbers:

138 U.S. DEP’T OF JUST., EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM: FY 2011 STATE SOLICITATION 7 (2011), available at
https://www.bja.gov/evaluation/pm-solicitations/FY11_Byrne_State_Justice_Assistance_Grant_Program.pdf; see also Edward Byrne
Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program, Frequently Asked Questions 12 (updated Aug. 2012), available at https://www.bja.gov/
Funding/JAGFAQ.pdf.
139 The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) uses a variety of performance measures to evaluate the activities for which funds are
being used, including arrests. See BUREAU OF JUST. ASSISTANCE, PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT
(ARRA) AND JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAMS (2010) [hereinafter BJA, PERFORMANCE MEASURES (2010)], available at https://www.
bjaperformancetools.org/help/ARRAJAGandJAGCombinedIndicatorGrid.pdf (discussing the JAG performance measures, including the
number of people arrested). Agencies must submit data into a Performance Measurement Tool (PMT), which requires that they “report
on all performance measures that pertain to funded activity.” BUREAU OF JUST. ASSISTANCE, BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM PERFORMANCE
MEASURES FOR JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAMS 1 (Jan. 2012), available at https://www.bja.gov/Programs/JAG_Questionnaire_PA1_
Law%20Enforcement.pdf. For agencies receiving grant monies for law enforcement purposes, number of arrests is one of the metrics
used to measure performance. See id. at 6. Agencies are asked to report total number of arrests, how many of these arrests were
misdemeanor arrests, and how many of these arrests were felony arrests. See id. at 6-7. The BJA also asks for an itemization of the
amount of drugs seized, including marijuana. See id. at 7.
140 See Michelle Alexander, Op-Ed, Why Police Lie Under Oath, N.Y. TIMES, Feb 2, 2013, available at http://www.nytimes.
com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/why-police-officers-lie-under-oath.html (“Agencies receive cash rewards for arresting high numbers
of people for drug offenses, no matter how minor the offenses or how weak the evidence. Law enforcement has increasingly become a
numbers game”).

102

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 [The commander] ... regularly exhorted Task Force officers to keep their
arrest numbers up. All the officers were aware that the federal grant that
funded their unit, and on which their jobs depended, was good for only
eighteen to twenty-four months. [The commander] warned that they would
need statistics to show that the federal money was well spent and thus to
secure another grant. On more than one occasion, he sent the Task Force
out to begin a shift with comments like, “Let’s go out and kick ass,” and “[E]
verybody goes to jail tonight for everything, all right?”141
As far back as 1973, the National Commission warned against perverse financial
incentives embedded in the structure of early drug war funding programs:
The funding mechanism is so structured that it responds only when “bodies”
can be produced or counted. Such a structure penalizes a reduction in the
body count, while it rewards any increase in incidence figures and arrest
statistics with more money. Those receiving funds thus have a vested
interest in increasing or maintaining those figures.142
Four decades later, states remain heavily dependent on federal funding such as Byrne
grants,143 and the federal government continues to evaluate the performance of law
enforcement agencies receiving Byrne money in part through the number of people
arrested, rather than by more appropriate and logical barometers, such as decreases in
drug use, availability, addiction, overdoses, and deaths.144
Even if the decision to award, or to continue to award, the federal block grant to a local
enforcement agencies is not directly or indirectly tied to reported arrest data, the mere
fact of receiving money for the purpose of drug law enforcement likely incentivizes
local enforcement agencies to make drug arrests, and low-level drug arrests in
141 United States v. Reese, 2 F.3d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1993). 

142 See DRUG USE IN AMERICA: PROBLEM IN PERSPECTIVE, supra note 78, at 282.

143 The National Criminal Justice Association, along with dozens of other law enforcement associations, submitted a letter to

Congress in 2011 explaining the critical role that JAG funding plays for local and state law enforcement: 

Jobs are created and retained across America because of the investment of Byrne JAG dollars, in direct law enforcement,
local government … as well as the ample multiplier effect which increase jobs and economic activity in our communities. …
Because of Byrne JAG’s reach, this dynamic is at play in every pocket of our country.
Letter from the Nat’l Stakeholder Coalition on Byrne JAG Funding to the Senate Appropriations Subcomm. on Commerce, Justice,
Science, and Related Agencies (Sept. 9, 2011), available at http://www.naco.org/legislation/policies/Documents/Justice%20and%20
Public%20Safety/National%20Stakeholder%20Coalition%20Letter%20on%20Byrne%20JAG%20Funding%20-%209-9-11%20-%20
with%20signatures.pdf.
144 See generally Christopher Hallam & David R. Bewley-Taylor, Mapping the World Drug Problem: Science and Politics in the United
Nations Drug Control System, 21 INT’L J. OF DRUG POL’Y 1 (2010) (discussing the current limitations in assessing the global use of drugs and
the drug problem).

The Rise in Marijuana Possession Arrests

  103


 particular, including for marijuana possession. In other words, providing state and local
enforcement agencies with federal grants for drug law enforcement purposes means
that some, if not all, of this money will be spent making arrests. To the extent that these
arrests are for UCR Part I violent crimes, this promotes the original goals and objectives
of the Byrne JAG Program. But since drug enforcement is a key priority of JAG funding,
many agencies will use such funds to make arrests for low-level drug offenses, which,
as this report has exhaustively documented, almost always have a racially disparate
impact. In these circumstances, the results of such federal funding for law enforcement
purposes are of significant concern and deserve further scrutiny.
In short, the overall financial structure of the drug war, and the Byrne JAG program in
particular, may propel police departments to increase minor drug arrests using federal
funds.145 Through its substantial funding of drug law enforcement and its inclusion of
misdemeanor drug arrests as a performance measure for law enforcement agencies
reporting requirements, the United States government has, it appears, been a driving
force in the increase of such arrests, which are disproportionately of people of color.
Indeed, while police agencies benefit from JAG funding that increases law enforcement
budgets, individuals living in communities where police departments concentrate
arrests can pay a costly price. While further study is necessary on the effect that federal
funds, and the prospective and retrospective performance measures regarding the use
of those funds, have on the number of low-level drug arrests generated by agencies
vying for or receiving such funds, it is noteworthy that since the federal government
first began distributing JAG funds in 1989, the arrest rate for marijuana possession has
increased dramatically.

145 Another financial incentive of the drug war can be found in the asset seizure section of the 1984 federal Comprehensive
Crime Act, which provides police departments with another means by which they benefit financially from the War on Drugs. The law
enables police — without having to even make an arrest, let alone wait for a criminal conviction — to seize assets (usually money)
from individuals that the police claim are connected to illicit (most often drug) activities, assets which are often then awarded to the
police in part or in whole after forfeiture, thereby allowing police to increase their discretionary budgets through civil asset seizures
and forfeitures. One study found that state asset forfeiture laws permitting police to keep assets seized provide an institutional
incentive for police to commit relatively more resources to drug offenses. See Brent D. Mast, Bruce L. Benson & David W. Rasmussen,
Entrepreneurial Police and Drug Enforcement Policy, 104 PUB. CHOICE 285, 301 (2000), available at http://mailer.fsu.edu/~bbenson/PC2000.
pdf. The authors found that drug arrests as a portion of total arrests is about 20% higher, and drug arrest rates are 18% higher in states
that have such laws. Id. at 303. Scholars further argue that asset forfeiture laws that permit police departments to keep seized property
have created a law enforcement agenda that targets assets rather than crime. See Eric Blumenson & Eva S. Nilsen, Policing for Profit:
The Drug War’s Hidden Economic Agenda, 65 U. CHI. L. REV. 35 (1998). For example, the Volusia County, Florida, Sheriff’s Department’s
drug squad seized over $8 million from motorists in a 41-month period from 1989 to 1992. DAVID W. RASMUSSEN & BRUCE L. BENSON, THE
ECONOMIC ANATOMY OF A DRUG WAR: CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN THE COMMONS 136 (1994). Most of the seizures involved motorists traveling southbound,
rather than northbound, suggesting that the drug squad was more interested in seizing money than drug interdiction (since drugs
seized are normally destroyed and thus have no monetary value for police). Id. at 136-37. Additionally, there were no criminal charges
filed in over 75% of the seizure cases. Id. at 137. See generally MARIAN R. WILLIAMS, JEFFERSON E. HOLCOMB, & TOMISLAV V. KOVANDZIC, INST. FOR
JUST., POLICING FOR PROFIT: THE ABUSE OF CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE (2010), available at http://www.ij.org/policing-for-profit-the-abuse-of-civil­
asset-forfeiture-4.

104

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 PROFILE

SAM Court
A Pilot Marijuana Court Program in Philadelphia That Seeks to Reduce
Marijuana Penalties Fails to Solve the Underlying Problem: An Unending
Influx of People Arrested for Marijuana Possession

A

mong the numerous consequences of arresting so many people for
marijuana are states, and cities, struggles to process them through
overburdened criminal justice systems. In a time when jurisdictions
across the country are trying to save money, it is an expensive endeavor.
Philadelphia, which in 2010 made 5,590 arrests for marijuana possession
(82% of which were of Black people) — representing 27.7% of all drug
arrests that year — responded
by creating the Small Amounts
of Marijuana (SAM) Court, a
diversion program that treats
people arrested with 30 grams
or less of marijuana as a
summary offense rather than
a misdemeanor, designed to
unclog the court system and
free up prosecutors to focus
on serious crimes. “We were
spending thousands of dollars
for when someone possessed
$10 or $15 worth of weed,”
District Attorney Seth Williams
told the Philadelphia Daily
News in 2011. “It just didn’t
make any sense.”

Of course, a better
and significantly more
far-reaching approach
would be for the police
and prosecutors
to stop enforcing
marijuana possession
laws altogether,
obviating the need for
SAM in the first place.

In SAM Court, a magistrate offers the choice of the program or a trial. The
program consists of a two-hour class taught by a lawyer and costs $200, a
price the District Attorney’s Office says covers running the class. No plea is
entered, and if the defendant pays the fee and completes the class, his or
her record is expunged automatically.
Three years on, the results of the program are mixed. The program did
initially slow the flow of cases into criminal court, and, according to

Profile  

105


 the District Attorney’s Office, diverting thousands of these marijuana
possession cases out of criminal court has saved the city an estimated $2
million in the past year. But data from last summer shows that less than
half of the participants actually complete the program. Though there has
not been a formal study examining why many people do not finish SAM, it
appears to be in part because most people who cycle through the program
are poor and cannot afford the fees.
Regardless of how SAM and similar pilot programs are structured, they
fail to address the underlying problem: high arrest rates for marijuana
possession. A better and significantly farther-reaching approach would be
for the police and prosecutors to stop enforcing marijuana possession laws
altogether, obviating the need for SAM in the first place.
The ACLU spoke to Derek Riker, Chief of Diversion Courts in Philadelphia,
and Kirsten Heine, Chief of the Charging Unit at the Philadelphia District
Attorney’s Office, about the program.
ACLU: How did SAM Court come about?
DR: When D[istrict] A[ttorney Seth] Williams got elected, one of the issues
the assistant district attorneys raised was that they were spending a great
amount of time preparing trials for small amounts of marijuana cases.
At the end of it all, [though], the most the court could sentence a defendant
was to 30 days incarceration, which never happened. It was generally
no further penalty, some community service, or at most a few days
probationary time, so there was really no bang for the buck.
ACLU: How does it work?
DR: Each person is individually called up in front of a trial commissioner.
[The] options are [to] enter the SAM program or ask for a trial.
If you choose to enter the SAM class, you’ll be given a subpoena for a class
date, between four and seven weeks out. You have to appear [at the class]
with either a bank check or a money order for $200 to cover court costs
and the cost of the program.
The class is Saturday, three to four hours long; you participate in a
presentation.

106

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 You’re also given a second subpoena for what’s called a status date. If [for]
any reason you miss the [SAM class], you already have a preset date to
return to court.
ACLU: There’s no guilty plea involved?
DR: You’re not entering a plea. If you complete the class, no plea is
ever entered, your case is just withdrawn, and eventually your record is
expunged. No paperwork needs to be filed. No additional fee.
ACLU: So it’s about getting people through the system, not
decriminalizing marijuana?
KH: It’s the legislature’s choice to classify marijuana the way it has. People
often say, ‘You decriminalized marijuana.’ And I say, ‘That’s not true; we
haven’t decriminalized marijuana.’
The police department is going to continue arresting people. That’s
something you have to talk to them about. I think they have some feelings
about the impact on the community of people smoking marijuana in
whatever community they’re policing. I agree with their concerns. I think
the question becomes, what is the appropriate penalty for that?
We still process [defendants]. But we’ve changed the way that we deal with
them in the court system.
ACLU: Who ends up in SAM court? On the day I went, there were 21
African-Americans and 2 white people. Is that typical?
KH: I’ve been asked the question so many times: do you consider race in
making your decisions?
I can’t speak to whom the police department arrests. When we charge
people, we have no idea who they are. So I really don’t think [race] impacts
what we do at all.
DR: My personal speculation as to why you’re going to end up with those
kinds of results [is] because more crime in Philadelphia is in areas that are
populated by more minorities. So we have more police forces dedicated to
those areas, [which] just increases your chances of encounter.

Profile  

107


 PROFILE

Roderick Battle, 29
Memphis, TN

R

ight before the Memphis police arrested Roderick Battle, they told his
nine-year-old daughter not to worry. They said, “Don’t worry about
anything. He’s not going to go to jail. Daddy’s going to be fine.” But
when they found marijuana in the apartment where Mr. Battle was hanging
out with a friend, “They ended up arresting me anyway. That hurt my
daughter. It hurt her real bad,” Mr. Battle said.
As Mr. Battle tells it, he was at his friend’s house the day it happened. The
friend was outside parking his car, when the police stopped him and started
asking questions. Mr. Battle peered out the door to see what was going on.
The police saw him and told him not to move. But Mr. Battle, who had a bag
of marijuana in his pocket, panicked, and moved away from the door.
“I came back to the door 

and the police were already 

coming in with guns out.”
The police handcuffed him.
When they asked if they 

would find anything in the
apartment, Mr. Battle was
honest. “There’s marijuana.
It’s mine, I can’t lie.”

When Mr. Battle was
arrested, he said he 

spent the whole time 

worrying, “Who’s going
to take care of the
kids? Who’s going to
be there when they get
out of school?”

As the police tell it, they were
getting ready to search the
apartment. They saw what they thought was a marijuana cigarette on the
coffee table. They claim that Mr. Battle, who was standing nearby, said that
the marijuana was his.
In any case, it is undisputed that the police arrested Mr. Battle and charged
him with possession with intent to distribute, a felony. He was lucky it
took only a day to get him out of jail, but his wife had to borrow money

108

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 to come up with the $300 bail. With the
help of his lawyer, a public defender, the
charge was reduced to simple possession,
a misdemeanor. Mr. Battle enrolled in a
court-supervised diversion program, which
means he is on probation for the next year.
While on probation, he is subject to random
drug testing, and any misstep, whether a
failed drug test or a traffic violation, could
send him back to jail. If he successfully
completes the program and pays all his
fines, plus another fee, he could have his
record expunged.
That is especially important to him, because
until now he had no criminal record and had
never been arrested before. “I’m not the
type of person to do anything to get myself caught up. I’m a family guy; I
stay around my kids, my wife, you know, just stay out of the way.”
He and his wife have four children — two daughters, 9 and 4, and 7-year­
old twin boys. When Mr. Battle was arrested, he said he spent the whole
time worrying: “Who’s going to take care of the kids? Who’s going to be
there when they get out of school?”
He was recently laid off from his job as a cook, and has been trying to find a
new job. That could be hard, because as long as he is on probation, his case
will appear as “pending” when employers do background checks. For now,
he watches his kids while his wife is at her job as a supermarket cashier.
Mr. Battle is grateful the charges were reduced. But the experience has
been extremely difficult, and he is still perplexed at the police response.
“I’m not a bad guy,” he said. “I just had a little marijuana.”

Profile  

109


 VII.

A.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Marijuana Policy

i. Legalize Marijuana Use and Possession
The most effective way to eliminate arrests for marijuana use and possession, the
racial disparities among such arrests, and the Fourth Amendment violations that often
accompany such arrests, is to legalize marijuana. For instance, in Washington, Blacks
were almost three times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession as whites,
and the Black/white racial disparity in marijuana possession arrests increased by
42% between 2001 and 2010. By passing Initiative 502, which legalized possession of
marijuana for people 21 years or older and thus ended arrests of adults for possession,
Washington has also ended such racial disparities with respect to marijuana possession
arrests of people 21 years or older.
Marijuana legalization should occur through a system of taxation, licensing, and
regulation under which private businesses licensed and regulated by the state can
sell marijuana subject to a sales tax. Legalization through taxing and licensing would
not only solve the arrests epidemic and its attendant racial disparities by removing
marijuana possession and use
from the criminal justice system,
it would also save cash-strapped
state and local governments millions
of dollars in decreased police,
jail, and court costs that could be
redirected to supporting public
health approaches to drug addiction
and confronting more serious crime.
For example, in 2010, 61% of all
drug arrests in Colorado were for
marijuana possession, the ninth
highest percentage share in the country. Following passage of Amendment 64, which
legalized marijuana possession for adults, police can reinvest those resources toward
other more important public health and safety objectives. At the same time, legalization
through taxation and regulation would raise new revenue that states could apportion to
public schools, substance abuse prevention, including community- and school-based
programs, as well as to general funds, local budgets, research and health care.

Legalization would not
only solve the arrest
epidemic and its attendant
racial disparities, it would
save cash-strapped state
and local governments
millions of dollars.

110

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 The legalization of marijuana will also provide more seriously ill patients with critical
access to a medicine that can alleviate their pain and suffering without the harmful
side effects – such as nausea or loss of appetite – of many prescription medicines.
Currently there are 19 states, along with the District of Columbia, that allow marijuana
for medicinal purposes.
Legalization would also reduce the demand for marijuana from Mexico, thereby
removing the profit incentives of the Mexican marijuana trade and reducing its
associated violence.146 Indeed, one study estimates that the marijuana legalization laws
in Colorado and Washington will deprive Mexican drug cartels of $1.425 and $1.372
billion in profits, respectively.147
Therefore, states should:
Q  License, tax, and regulate marijuana production, distribution, and possession
for persons 21 or older148
Q  Remove criminal and civil penalties for activities so authorized
Q  Tax marijuana sales
Q  Earmark marijuana-related revenues to public schools and substance-abuse
prevention, including community- and school-based programs, as well as
general funds, local budgets, research and health care
The specific contours of regulation will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, depending
on local laws and public opinion. For instance, in Washington, Initiative 502 prohibits
home growing of marijuana except for medical marijuana patients, whereas in Colorado,
home growing is permitted. Therefore, this report offers examples of regulations
for potential consideration as opposed to endorsing a fixed set of rules for every
jurisdiction. Initiative 502 in Washington provides one regulatory model: it ensures
146 In 2009, California recognized “the linkages between drug demand in the US and violence in Mexico, as well as the recent fiscal
deficit, [prompting] the State Board of Equalization to prepare estimates of the potential revenue from a regulated marijuana market.”
DAN WERB ET AL., INT’L CTR. FOR SCIENCE IN DRUG POL’Y, EFFECT OF DRUG LAW ENFORCEMENT ON DRUG-RELATED VIOLENCE: EVIDENCE FROM A SCIENTIFIC REVIEW
20 (2010) [hereinafter WERB ET AL.], available at http://www.icsdp.org/docs/ICSDP-1%20-%20FINAL.pdf. Vicente Fox, the former president
of Mexico, has has also advocated for the legalization of marijuana in Mexico to end the drug violence caused by organized crime. See
Rafael Romo, Former Mexican President Urges Legalizing Drugs, CNN.COM, Jul. 26, 2011, http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-26/world/
mexico.drugs_1_drug-cartels-drug-policy-drug-violence?_s=PM:WORLD (last visited Apr. 10, 2013).
147 Olga Khazan, How Marijuana Legalization Will Affect Mexico’s Cartels, in Charts, WASH. POST (Nov. 9, 2012, 4;24 PM), http://www.
washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/11/09/how-marijuana-legalization-will-affect-mexicos-cartels-in-charts/ (citing the
Mexican Competitiveness Institute’s 2012 study). The RAND Corporation estimates that the Mexican cartels stand to lose $1.5 billion per
year if the United States were to legalize marijuana, a slightly lower yet still significant figure. See KILMER ET AL., supra note 95, at 3.
148 Since legalization for persons over 21 still exposes persons under 21 to criminal sanctions, and given that 42% of people arrested
for marijuana possession in 2010 were 20 and younger, when legalizing use and possession for persons 21 or older, states should
decriminalize marijuana use and possession for persons under 21 by reclassifying such activity as a civil offense subject only to a
fine. If decriminalization for persons under 21 is unobtainable, police departments and prosecutors should make marijuana use and
possession for people under 21 a low enforcement priority.

Recommendations

  111


 that establishments licensed to sell 

marijuana are located at least 1,000 feet
from schools, playgrounds, and parks,
and do not display marijuana in a way that
is visible to the public; limits availability
to stores that sell no products other
than marijuana; prohibits public use and
display of marijuana; prohibits sales to
minors; restricts advertising generally and
bans advertising in places frequented by
youth;149 and establishes a standard for
driving under the influence of marijuana
(i.e., active THC content) that would
operate like the alcohol DUI standards.
State agencies can also regulate the
numbers of stores per county, operating hours, security, quality control, labeling, and
other health and safety issues.

If legalizing marijuana
is unobtainable, states
can significantly reduce
marijuana arrests
and their damaging
consequences through
depenalization.
Decriminalization is a
viable third option.

Marijuana legalization through a tax and regulate system should not mandate state
employees to grow, distribute, or sell marijuana, as such conduct would require state
officials to violate federal law and thus likely be preempted by federal law (the Controlled
Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §801) as it now stands. But legalization laws can require
state officials to perform administrative, ministerial, and regulatory duties necessary to
implement and oversee state laws and regulations.
As a society, we permit the controlled use of alcohol and tobacco, substances that
are dangerous to health and at times to public safety. We educate society about those
dangers, and have constructed a system of laws that allow for the use and possession
of these substances while seeking to protect the public from their dangers. There is
no reason, particularly given the findings of this report, that such a system cannot and
should not also be constructed for marijuana use and possession.

ii. Depenalize Marijuana Use and Possession
If legalizing marijuana through taxation and licensing is unobtainable, states can take
significant steps toward reducing marijuana arrests and their damaging consequences

149 When drafting legalization legislation to regulate the possession and sale of marijuana, proponents should be cognizant of
federal — and often similar state — laws regarding drug-free school zones, see 21 U.S.C. § 860(a), which enhance penalties for violating
federal drug laws if such violations occur within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary, vocational, or secondary school or a public
or private college, junior college, or university, or a playground, or housing facility owned by a public housing authority. Jurisdictions
should also be aware of local laws regulating liquor sales, advertising, and licenses, as they may provide a helpful if not necessary guide
to regulating marijuana sale, advertising, and licenses.

112

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 by removing all criminal and civil penalties for marijuana use and possession.150 Under
depenalization, there would be no arrests, prosecutions, tickets, or fines for marijuana
use or possession, as long as such use and possession complied with any existing
regulations governing such activity.151
Depenalization not only removes marijuana possession and use from the grasp of the
criminal justice system, it avoids the pitfalls associated with replacing criminal penalties
with civil penalties (see Recommendation #3 below).
Therefore, states should:
Q  Amend their current criminal and civil statutes to remove all penalties for
persons 21 or older for possession of marijuana for personal use (the amount
could be, for example, limited to an ounce or less, but this can be determined
on a state by state basis)

iii. Decriminalize Marijuana Use and Possession
If both legalizing marijuana use and possession through taxation and regulation
and depenalization are unobtainable, states can take steps toward reducing
marijuana arrests by decriminalizing marijuana possession for adults and youth.152
Decriminalization replaces all criminal penalties for marijuana use and possession
with civil penalties. Massachusetts provides a useful case study on the impact that
decriminalization can have on reducing marijuana arrests.153 In 2009, Massachusetts
decriminalized adult possession of an ounce or less of marijuana for personal use,
with a maximum civil penalty of a $100 fine and forfeiture of the marijuana (anyone

150 For the reasons stated in footnote 148, since depenalization for persons over 21 still exposes persons under 21 to criminal
sanctions, states should decriminalize marijuana use and possession for persons under 21 by reclassifying such activity as a civil
offense subject only to a fine. If decriminalization for persons under 21 is unobtainable, police departments and prosecutors should
make marijuana use and possession for people under 21 a low enforcement priority.
151 In Alaska, marijuana possession and use inside of the home has long been protected from penalty as a matter of privacy under
the state constitution. See Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494, 504 (Alaska 1975).
152 Passed in 2010 and taking effect in January 2011, California’s SB 1449 reduced simple marijuana possession for adults and youth
to an infraction involving a citation rather than a criminal arrest. A research brief by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice found
that the new law reduced marijuana possession arrests of youth by 61% in just one year, from 15,000 in 2010 to 5,800 in 2011, and
contributed to the 20% overall drop in arrests of youth under 18. MIKE MALES, CTR. ON JUV. & CRIM. JUST., CALIFORNIA YOUTH CRIME PLUNGES TO
ALL-TIME LOW 7 (2012), available at http://www.cjcj.org/files/CA_Youth_Crime_2011.pdf. While proponents of zero-tolerance policing might
predict an attendant spike in youth crime, the opposite occurred. Crime among youths fell in all categories in 2011 — felony arrests
by 17%, both violent and property felonies by 16%, misdemeanor and status offenses by 21%, and homicide by 26%, indicating that
marijuana decriminalization not only reduces arrests, but can be accompanied by a simultaneous decrease in crime. See id. at 1.
153 Other jurisdictions that have recently decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana include Rhode Island, which
passed legislation in 2012 that will take effect in April 2013 making possession of an ounce or less of marijuana a civil violation subject
to a fine of $150, see Mike McKinney, R.I. Gov. Chafee Signs into Law Decriminalization of Small Amounts of Marijuana, PROVIDENCE J., June
13, 2012, available at http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/2012/06/ri-gov-chafee-s-6.html, and Chicago, which in 2012
allowed police to issue tickets instead of make arrests for possession of 15 grams or less of marijuana. See Mack, supra note 25.

Recommendations

  113


 under 18 must also complete a drug awareness program). In 2008, the year before
decriminalization took effect, Massachusetts arrested 8,502 people for marijuana
possession; in 2009, that figure dropped to 1,240 — an 85% decrease — and dropped
again to 1,181 in 2010. See Figure 26. Indeed, the arrest rate for marijuana possession
in Massachusetts (18 per 100,000) is the lowest in the country. Despite being one of the
15 most populous states, in 2010 Massachusetts made the third fewest total marijuana
possession arrests nationwide behind only North Dakota and Vermont. Not surprisingly,
marijuana arrests now make up less than 10% of all of drug arrests in Massachusetts,
by far the smallest percentage of any state in the country. Although the racial disparities
in marijuana possession arrests did not improve — in fact, they grew worse: the arrest
rate in 2010 was 61 per 100,000 Blacks and 16 per 100,000 whites, a ratio of 3.81 — the
actual number of Blacks arrested declined 83% between 2008 and 2010 (while the
number of whites arrested dropped 87%).

FIGURE 26
Number of Marijuana Possession Arrests in Massachusetts (2007-2010)
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0

2007
2008
Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data

2009

2010

Although reclassification of marijuana possession and use from a criminal to a civil
offense is a far better alternative to the criminalization of marijuana possession, it is
important to recognize that replacing marijuana possession arrests with fees, fines,
and/or tickets is not an ideal solution for a number of reasons. First, the same racial
disparities that exist nationwide in arrests for marijuana possession would likely be
replicated in citations for civil offenses for marijuana possession. Second, the monetary
fines that accompany civil offenses can place a substantial burden on those fined,
particularly the young and/or poor, groups that are disproportionately targeted by police.

114

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 Third, individuals who are unable to make payments in a timely fashion, or at all, or who
do not appear in court to answer to the civil charge, are subject to arrest — often by a
warrant squad — which results in individuals being brought to court, and in some cases
jailed, for failing to pay the fines or to appear. In addition to placing significant personal
and financial burdens on the individual, this also imposes significant costs on the state,
possibly exceeding the original fine imposed. Therefore, at the very least, whenever
anyone is unable to pay a fine levied for marijuana possession or use, there should be
alternatives to cash payments. Further, under no circumstances should the state be
permitted to detain or incarcerate anyone as a penalty for failure to pay a civil fine for
possessing marijuana. Fourth, allowing cities and counties to generate revenue through
civil fines provides an incentive for police to enforce such civil laws aggressively.
If legalization and depenalization are unobtainable, states should:
Q  Amend their current criminal statutes so that possession of an ounce or
less of marijuana for personal use by adults and youth would be a civil
offense only, for which the maximum penalty is a small fine, with alternative
penalties available for people unable to pay
Q  Earmark revenues generated from marijuana-related civil penalties to public
schools, substance abuse prevention, including community- and school-based
programs, as well as to general funds, local budgets, research and health care

B. Policing
i. Police Departments Should Make Marijuana Possession
Arrests a Lowest Enforcement Priority
Aggressive enforcement of low-level offenses such as marijuana possession
unnecessarily draws hundreds of thousands of people into the criminal justice system,
primarily young people of color, for nonviolent activities. Such enforcement is a waste of
precious law enforcement time, money, and resources.
Indeed, in 2010, 52.8 % of violent crimes and 81.7 % of property crimes nationwide went

Recommendations

  115


 unsolved. Among violent crimes, 35.2 % of murder offenses went unsolved, along with
59.7 % of forcible rapes, 71.8 % of robberies, and 43.6 % of aggravated assaults.154
Until marijuana possession is legalized or otherwise decriminalized, municipalities,
district attorneys,155 and police departments should make the investigation, arrest, and
prosecution of marijuana offenses, particularly when intended for personal use, a lowest
enforcement priority. Over the past several years, certain cities, including Seattle (prior
to legalization) and San Francisco, made marijuana possession a lowest enforcement
priority. Such a policy allows police departments to focus resources on serious crimes
while their municipalities address drug use through public health and education
initiatives.156

ii. Police Departments Should End Racial Profiling
“Racial profiling” refers to the act of selecting or targeting a person(s) for law
enforcement contact (including stop, frisk, search, and arrest) based on the individual’s
real or perceived race, ethnicity, or national origin rather than upon reasonable
suspicion that the individual has or is engaged in criminal activity. Racial profiling
includes policies or practices that unjustifiably have a disparate impact on certain
communities.

154 Uniform Crime Reports, Offenses Cleared, clearance fig., FED. BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in­
the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/clearances (last visited Apr. 10, 2013).
155 District attorneys have discretion as to which arrests they prosecute. In 2010, the Harris County District Attorney’s Office
implemented a policy to stop prosecuting drug paraphernalia possession cases as felonies. See Brian Rogers, Crack Policy puts Harris
County DA at Odds with Police, HOUSTON CHRONICLE, Dec. 5, 2011, available at http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/District­
Attorney-and-police-divided-on-crack-2346724.php. Under the old practice, officers would arrest people found with paraphernalia
with felony drug possession if there was any drug residue. The change in policy resulted in a drop of 7,800 felony drug possession
cases between 2008 and 2011. REBECCA BERNHARDT, TEX. CRIM. JUST. COAL., HARRIS COUNTY COMMUNITIES: A CALL FOR TRUE COLLABORATION, RESTORING
COMMUNITY TRUST AND IMPROVING PUBLIC SAFETY 9 (2013), available at http://www.texascjc.org/sites/default/files/uploads/Harris%20County%20
Communities%20A%20Call%20for%20True%20Collaboration.pdf. Additionally, both violent and property crimes dropped during this
period, challenging opponents’ claim that arresting and prosecuting people for possessing drug paraphernalia prevents more serious
crime. See id. at 9-10. Despite the precipitous drop in arrests, and the attendant decline in violent and property crimes, the newly
elected Harris County district attorney reversed the policy in January 2013. See Brian Rogers, DA Anderson Reverses Trace Case Policy,
HOUSTON CHRONICLE, Jan. 24, 2013, available at http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/DA-Anderson-reverses­
trace-case-policy-4221910.php. Similarly, Bronx District Attorney Robert Johnson recently announced that his office would no longer
prosecute people arrested for trespassing in public housing projects unless the prosecutor first interviewed the arresting officer to
ensure that the arrest was proper. Joseph Goldstein, Prosecutor Deals Blow to Stop-and-Frisk Tactic, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 25, 2012, available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/nyregion/in-the-bronx-resistance-to-prosecuting-stop-and-frisk-arrests.html?pagewanted=all&_
r=0. This change in policy came after allegations that people were being stopped and charged with trespass when they were legitimately
on the premises. The month after the policy took effect, arrests fell 25% from the same month one year before. Such “stop-prosecution”
policies — particularly if adopted by district attorneys in counties with significant racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests —
can be used to end such arrests and their attendant racial disparities.
156 For instance, a study found that police reallocation of resources toward drug arrests in Florida resulted in a 41% increase of Index
I crimes over the same data period. Bruce L. Benson, David W. Rasmussen & Iljoong Kim, Deterrence and Public Policy: Trade-Offs in the
Allocation of Police Resources, 18 INT’L REVIEW OF L. AND ECON. 77, 78 (1998), available at http://mailer.fsu.edu/~bbenson/IRL&E1998.pdf. By
shifting “resources away from alternative uses, thereby reducing patrolling to prevent nondrug crimes and/or the ability to respond and
make arrests after such crimes have been committed[,]” serious crime increased. Id. at 97.

116

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 Racial profiling can lead to the aggressive enforcement of minor offenses in
communities of color, disproportionately and needlessly entangling such communities
— particularly their youth members — in the criminal justice system for nonviolent
activities that are not enforced in other communities. Such targeted enforcement of petty
offenses, including marijuana possession,
not only engulfs hundreds of thousands of
people into the criminal justice system, it
creates mistrust of the police by targeted
communities, thereby reducing public
safety, as these communities avoid police
interaction and are less likely to report
criminal activities or to cooperate with
police in solving serious crimes. Even
when utilizing geographic crime-mapping
of serious crime, police departments
should work with communities to address
and prevent those crimes rather than
simply target large swaths of those
communities for enforcement of low-level
offenses.

Targeted enforcement
of marijuana
possession engulfs
hundreds of thousands
of people into the
criminal justice system
and creates mistrust
of the police, thereby
reducing public safety.

Therefore, police departments should adopt model racial profiling policies that strictly
prohibit law enforcement from engaging in profiling of persons — drivers, passengers,
and pedestrians alike — and make clear that enforcement of state and federal laws
must be carried out in a responsible and professional manner, without regard to race,
ethnicity, or national origin. Police departments must ensure that all department
personnel receive training about the harms of racial profiling and discrimination;
investigate all complaints in a thorough and timely manner; in concert with appropriate
disciplinary action, require additional diversity, sensitivity, and implicit bias training of
all officers with sustained bias profiling or other discrimination complaints filed against
them; and implement appropriate discipline for non-compliance with such policies, up to
and including dismissal.

Recommendations

  117


 iii. Police Procedures Must Be Fair and Constitutional
Police departments must end suspicionless stops, suspicionless frisks, and
searches without probable cause. Such stop, frisk, and search policies violate the
Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures and
disproportionally impact innocent Blacks and Latinos. They are humiliating and can be
traumatic. They are also ineffective and foster community resentment against the police.
Police departments must establish explicit
guidelines outlining the specific, limited
circumstances under which the Fourth
Amendment permits a stop, frisk, and
subsequent search, and train officers on
the guidelines annually. No pedestrian
or motorist shall be detained beyond
the point when there is no reasonable
suspicion of criminal activity, and no
person or vehicle shall be searched in the 

absence of a warrant, a legally recognized
exception to the warrant requirement, or
the person’s informed voluntary consent. 


Suspicionless stops,
suspicionless frisks,
and searches without
probable cause violate
the Fourth Amendment
and disproportionately
impact innocent Blacks 

and Latinos. 


iv. Police Should Adopt, Whether Voluntarily or as Required by
State Law, Model Consent Search Policies
A law enforcement officer may only seek consent to search when he or she has
articulable suspicion, i.e., when an officer possesses knowledge of sufficient articulable
facts at the time of the encounter to create a reasonable belief that the person in
question has committed, or is about to commit, a crime.
A police officer should conduct a consensual search only after advising a civilian of his or
her right to refuse. Prior to a search, the police must articulate the following factors to,
and subsequently receive consent from, the person subject to the search or the person
with the apparent or actual authority to provide permission to search: (1) the person is
being asked to voluntarily consent to a search; and (2) the person has the right to refuse
the request to search.
After providing the advisement, a police officer may conduct the requested search only

118

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 if the person subject to the search voluntarily provides verbal or written consent in a
language understood and, where applicable, read by the person. If consent is obtained
orally, a law enforcement agent shall make an audio recording of the person’s statement
consenting to the search voluntarily.157

v. Police Departments and the Federal Government Should
Eliminate Policies That Incentivize Arrests for Minor Offenses
a. Police Departments Should Cease Using Raw Numbers of Stops, Citations,
Summons, and Arrests as a Metric to Measure Their Productivity and Effectiveness in
Serving Communities and Addressing Crime
Evaluating law enforcement agencies based on the numbers of stops, citations,
summons, and arrests does not properly measure public safety and increases pressure
on police officers and departments to aggressively enforce criminal laws for nonviolent
offenses. Including arrests as a measure of productivity creates an incentive for police
to selectively target poor and marginalized communities for enforcement of low-level
offenses, as low-level offenses are committed more frequently than serious felony
crimes, the arrests are less resource- and time-intensive than investigating arrests
for serious felony crimes, and such arrests can be made most easily and at the least
political cost.
By relying heavily on stops, citations, summons, and arrests, COMPSTAT encourages
police departments to target their resources on low-level offenders to increase their
arrest statistics and thus appear highly active, while discouraging police to pursue
and record serious crimes accurately for fear of impugning the police department’s
crime-reducing reputation. The pressure on police officers to “make their numbers”
results in a focus on aggressive stops and searches that often flaunt the suspicionbased requirements of the Fourth Amendment and lead to arrests for minor offenses,
including marijuana possession. The end results are heavily policed communities that
are not necessarily safer and in which many law-abiding people are subject to stops,
frisks, and searches; heightened animosity between the communities and the police;
a de-emphasis on procedural justice and police legitimacy;158 and pushing minor
rule-breakers into the criminal justice system unnecessarily, often at an immense
157 If a policy requiring recording is unobtainable, written consent remains an option.

158 See Tom R. Tyler & Jeffrey Fagan, Legitimacy and Cooperation: Why do People Help the Police Fight Crime in Their Communities?, 6 

Ohio St. J. of Crim. L. 231, (2008) (finding that for police to be successful addressing crime, police need cooperation from communities,

which is achieved when communities perceive police actions and decisions as legitimate, and police treatment of the community as fair

and respectful).


Recommendations

  119


 (and sometimes lifelong) personal cost to individuals and their families as well as at a
pecuniary cost to taxpayers.
Therefore, while the crime-mapping components of COMPSTAT can identify where serious
crimes are occurring with greater frequency, thus focusing police departments’ resources on
those areas to address serious crimes, it need not and indeed should not be accompanied by
unconstitutional stop and search practices or a focus on generating high numbers of arrests
for minor offenses in those areas. To move away from evaluating progress and productivity
through arrest numbers, police departments should reduce the reliance on stops, citations,
summons, and arrests and broaden their benchmarks of success, relying instead more heavily
on other measurements of community safety and police-community relations.

b. The Federal Government Should Not Include Marijuana Possession Arrests in its
Performance Measures for Byrne Justice Assistance Grants
Justice Assistance Grants were created with the purpose of curtailing serious, violent crime
and cracking down on drug kingpins. However, because arrest statistics — which include any
arrest, including any drug arrest — are included in law enforcements’ performance measures,
police departments are likely encouraged to increase their arrest numbers by targeting their
limited resources on low-level drug users and possessors. By including marijuana possession
arrests in performance assessments of a states’ use of federal funds, the federal government
is relying upon an unreliable measure of law enforcement’s effectiveness in fighting crime and
reducing the traffic and availability of drugs. Indeed, such arrests reduce neither the use nor
availability of marijuana.

Therefore, the Bureau of Justice Assistance should take the following steps to reform the
existing JAG process:
Q  Cease including marijuana possession arrests as a performance measure for
purposes of federal funding
Q  Ensure that federal funds are not provided or used by state and local law 

enforcement agencies to make arrests for marijuana possession

Q  Require law enforcement agencies receiving federal funding to enforce a ban
on racial profiling and document their pedestrian and traffic stops, arrests, and
searches by race, ethnicity, and gender (designating money for data collection if
needed)
Q  Reform performance measures to include factors such as the numbers of citizen
complaints, surveys measuring community satisfaction with the police, including
community views on the legitimacy and fairness of police actions and decisions, and
the rates of violent crime
120

 

The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 vi. Police Should Increase Data Collection and Transparency
Regarding Stop, Frisk, Search, and Arrest Practices
Police departments should promote accountability and transparency by collecting stop,
frisk, search, citation, and arrest data; making the aggregate data publicly available;
creating evaluation systems to analyze such data to identify and address racial
disparities in enforcement practices; and developing policing strategies that reduce such
racial disparities in enforcement practices.
Whether or not a citation is issued or an arrest is made, the police officer must
document the following information consistent with existing or adopted local reporting
protocols and technology:
Q  The age, gender, race, and ethnicity of the individual stopped and the date,
time, and location of the stop
Q  The duration of and reason for the stop
Q  Whether a search was conducted, and if so, whether the person stopped
consented to the search
Q  Whether and what type of contraband was recovered
Q  Whether and what type of citation or summons was issued or arrest made; and
Q  The identification of the officers involved
To guarantee statewide uniform arrest and citation documentation, state legislatures
should require all police departments to electronically record information regarding
stops, frisks, searches, citations, and arrests by race and locality, share the information
with a central state agency, and publish the data in biannual or quarterly reports (on
their website or in print available upon request). Personally identifiable information
about the person stopped should not be recorded. The reports should be easily
searchable. Such transparency will provide the public — community members, local
and state policymakers, criminologists, lawyers, academics, the media, etc. — with
a meaningful empirical basis for determining what precipitates a police action, and,
in particular, for determining whether race, ethnicity, and gender have been used
inappropriately, and to raise concerns where warranted. This would provide more
objective and understandable information for assessing crime and the police response
to crime; inform community-police discussions about the nature and appropriateness
of police practices and allocation of police resources; promote more respectful
and productive police-civilian encounters and build community trust in local police

Recommendations

  121


 departments; better ensure accountability for police departments; and prompt the
development of training programs that educate police officers about the conscious and
subconscious uses of racial and ethnic stereotypes.

vii. External Oversight Agencies Should Conduct Regular Audits
and Reviews of Police Departments and Practices
An external oversight agency, such as an Inspector General or civilian review board,
should regularly analyze data regarding police departments’ stops, frisks, searches,
citations, and arrests, by race and locality, to assess whether there are any unjustified
racial disparities in enforcement practices. All such analyses and findings should be
made available to the public.

122

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 VIII.

CONCLUSION

Like America’s larger War on Drugs, America’s War on Marijuana has been a failure.
The aggressive enforcement of marijuana possession laws needlessly ensnares
hundreds of thousands of people in the criminal justice system, crowds our jails, is
carried out in a racially biased manner, wastes millions of taxpayers’ dollars and has not
reduced marijuana use or availability. Marijuana possession arrests also waste precious
police resources and divert law enforcement from responding to and solving serious
crimes. It is time for marijuana possession arrests to end.

Conclusion

  123


 APPENDIX A


FIGURE A1
Arrest Rates for Marijuana Possession in New York City by Race/Ethnicity
(2010)
Arrest Rate per 100,000

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

Bronx

Kings

Black Arrest Rate
White Arrest Rate

New York

Queens

Richmond

Latino Arrest Rate
Asian Arrest Rate

Source: New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services and U.S. Census Data

FIGURE A2
Arrest Rates for Marijuana Offenses in California by Race/Ethnicity
(2010)
Arrest Rate per 100,000

500
400
300
200
100
0

Felony Arrests
Black Arrest Rate
White Arrest Rate

Misdemeanor Arrests
Latino Arrest Rate
Other Arrest Rate

Source: Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Crime in California 2010 (2011)
and U.S. Census Data (2010)

124

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White


 FIGURE A3
Black/White Disparity in 25 Highest Percent Latino Counties (2010)
El Paso, TX
Imperial, CA
Kleberg, TX
Dona Ana, NM
Miami-Dade, FL
Nueces, TX
Tulare, CA
Yuma, AZ
Bexar, TX
Bee, TX
Hale, TX
Monterey, CA
Merced, CA
Madera, CA
Bronx, NY
Ector, TX
Chaves, NM
Ford, KS
Franklin, WA
Lea, NM
Kings, CA
Fresno, CA
Medina, TX
Kern, CA
San Bernardino, CA

Average Disparity

0

1

2
3
4
Black/White Disparity

5

6

NOTE: Population Size > 30,000 and Black Population Percentage > 2%

Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data

Appendix A

  125


 TABLE A1

Number of Arrests for Marijuana Possession by State (2010)

Number of Arrests for Marijuana Possession
State
New York
Texas
Florida
California
Illinois
Georgia
Maryland
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
North Carolina
Ohio
Virginia
Missouri
Arizona
Tennessee
Michigan
South Carolina
Wisconsin
Louisiana
Indiana
Oklahoma
Colorado
Oregon
Nevada
Connecticut
Washington
Mississippi
Minnesota
Nebraska
Kentucky
Arkansas
Iowa
Alabama
D.C.
Kansas
West Virginia
Utah
Idaho
New Mexico
Maine
New Hampshire
Delaware
Rhode Island
Wyoming
Alaska
South Dakota
Hawaii
Montana
Massachusetts
North Dakota
Vermont
United States

Total

White

Black

Black % of
Arrests

103,698
74,286
57,951
57,262
49,904
32,473
23,663
21,659
21,287
20,983
19,178
18,756
18,416
18,348
18,031
17,830
16,669
15,950
13,435
12,850
10,478
10,343
9,849
9,139
8,815
8,365
8,166
7,494
7,437
6,540
6,310
6,123
5,235
5,115
5,035
4,400
4,001
3,468
3,041
2,842
2,769
2,554
2,253
2,104
2,028
1,743
1,448
1,210
1,191
1,162
737
784,021

36,612
54,580
30,895
47,235
20,235
11,539
9,775
13,665
12,459
10,192
11,818
10,414
13,419
15,390
9,675
11,156
7,682
10,785
5,232
9,256
7,657
9,396
9,220
5,937
6,035
7,119
2,470
4,835
5,886
4,195
3,934
4,702
2,075
467
3,786
3,917
3,658
3,338
2,701
2,743
2,655
1,330
1,831
1,981
1,482
1,232
629
1,055
872
952
700
460,808

40,326
19,164
26,711
9,314
29,083
20,765
13,710
7,609
8,695
10,500
7,316
8,146
4,918
1,906
8,256
6,577
8,878
4,720
8,171
3,548
2,176
854
420
2,936
2,673
896
5,666
2,348
1,463
2,327
2,349
1,327
3,124
4,648
1,194
476
188
70
145
75
92
1,218
394
63
123
96
40
18
309
60
33
286,117

38.9%
25.8%
46.1%
16.3%
58.3%
63.9%
57.9%
35.1%
40.8%
50.0%
38.1%
43.4%
26.7%
10.4%
45.8%
36.9%
53.3%
29.6%
60.8%
27.6%
20.8%
8.3%
4.3%
32.1%
30.3%
10.7%
69.4%
31.3%
19.7%
35.6%
37.2%
21.7%
59.7%
90.9%
23.7%
10.8%
4.7%
2.0%
4.8%
2.6%
3.3%
47.7%
17.5%
3.0%
6.1%
5.5%
2.8%
1.5%
25.9%
5.2%
4.5%
36.5%

Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Arrests by Age, Sex, and Race and U.S. Census Data

126

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White

 TABLE A2
Percentage of All Marijuana Offenses That Were for Marijuana Possession by
State (2010)
Number of Arrests
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
D.C.
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Marijuana Possession

Marijuana Possession

All Marijuana Offenses

% of All Marijuana
Arrests

5,235
2,028
18,348
6,310
57,262
10,343
8,815
5,115
2,554
57,951
32,473
1,448
3,468
49,904
12,850
6,123
5,035
6,540
13,435
2,842
23,663
1,191
17,830
7,494
8,166
18,416
1,210
7,437
9,139
2,769
21,659
3,041
103,698
20,983
1,162
19,178
10,478
9,849
21,287
2,253
16,669
1,743
18,031
74,286
4,001
737
18,756
8,365
4,400
15,950
2,104

5,546
2,219
20,079
7,134
71,816
11,009
9,669
5,393
3,195
62,663
35,888
1,635
3,826
51,031
15,174
6,610
7,175
8,546
15,872
3,461
26,375
2,751
21,818
11,893
8,967
20,325
1,281
7,919
10,382
3,242
25,607
3,523
106,860
24,402
1,381
20,866
11,516
10,543
27,201
2,455
18,738
1,866
21,863
75,968
4,388
813
21,231
10,124
4,987
18,356
2,254

94.4%
91.4%
91.4%
88.4%
79.7%
94.0%
91.2%
94.8%
79.9%
92.4%
90.5%
88.6%
90.6%
97.8%
84.7%
92.6%
70.2%
76.5%
84.6%
82.1%
89.7%
43.3%
81.7%
63.0%
91.1%
90.6%
94.5%
93.9%
88.0%
85.4%
84.6%
86.3%
97.0%
86.0%
84.1%
91.9%
91.0%
93.4%
78.3%
91.8%
89.0%
93.4%
82.5%
97.8%
91.2%
90.6%
88.3%
82.6%
88.2%
86.9%
93.3%

NOTE: All Marijuana Offenses includes the manufacture and sale of marijuana.

Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: County-Level Detailed Arrest and Offense Data, 2010


Appendix A

  127

 TABLE A3
Percentage of Drug Arrests That Were for Marijuana Possession by State
(2010)
Number of Arrests
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
D.C.
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
United States

Marijuana Possession

Marijuana Possession

All Drug Offenses

% of All Drug Arrests

5,235
2,028
18,348
6,310
57,262
10,343
8,815
5,115
2,554
57,951
32,473
1,448
3,468
49,904
12,850
6,123
5,035
6,540
13,435
2,842
23,663
1,191
17,830
7,494
8,166
18,416
1,210
7,437
9,139
2,769
21,659
3,041
103,698
20,983
1,162
19,178
10,478
9,849
21,287
2,253
16,669
1,743
18,031
74,286
4,001
737
18,756
8,365
4,400
15,950
2,104
784,021

9,077
2,517
32,628
13,675
250,351
17,029
17,692
10,898
5,431
141,775
49,876
2,802
6,665
110,232
29,214
9,758
11,498
20,560
36,275
5,933
47,409
12,486
35,944
17,501
19,101
36,559
1,723
10,217
18,040
5,172
49,926
9,696
174,493
39,144
2,054
39,828
20,010
18,047
57,093
3,809
31,126
3,486
42,696
138,916
11,177
1,382
34,876
24,837
7,986
26,206
3,136
1,717,064

57.7%
80.6%
56.2%
46.1%
22.9%
60.7%
49.8%
46.9%
47.0%
40.9%
65.1%
51.7%
52.0%
45.3%
44.0%
62.8%
43.8%
31.8%
37.0%
47.9%
49.9%
9.5%
49.6%
42.8%
42.8%
50.4%
70.2%
72.8%
50.7%
53.5%
43.4%
31.4%
59.4%
53.6%
56.6%
48.2%
52.4%
54.6%
37.3%
59.1%
53.6%
50.0%
42.2%
53.5%
35.8%
53.3%
53.8%
33.7%
55.1%
60.9%
67.1%
45.7%

Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: County-Level Detailed Arrest and Offense Data, 2010

128

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White

 TABLE A4

Percent Change in Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates by State (2001-2010)

Arrest Rates per 100,000
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
D.C.
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Total Arrest Rate
(2001)

Total Arrest Rate
(2010)

% Change in Total
Arrest Rate

252
329
286
223
143
241
201
524
140
276
282
92
211
300
232
187
210
414
273
280
328
134
164
145
386
214
52
464
174
294
226
288
459
222
175
168
303
177
136
208
278
307
210
252
198
110
177
174
196
272
401

115
304
286
221
153
207
247
846
284
308
338
106
222
389
209
211
181
162
300
214
409
18
181
144
317
308
127
417
341
210
246
155
535
221
183
169
279
257
167
214
359
249
284
295
147
119
234
124
241
281
374

-54.4%
-7.7%
-0.0%
-0.9%
7.6%
-14.2%
22.5%
61.5%
102.1%
11.4%
19.6%
15.8%
5.2%
29.6%
-9.9%
12.9%
-13.6%
-61.0%
10.0%
-23.4%
24.7%
-86.4%
9.9%
-0.5%
-18.1%
43.6%
145.8%
-10.1%
96.0%
-28.5%
8.9%
-46.1%
16.6%
-0.3%
4.6%
0.4%
-7.9%
44.8%
23.0%
3.0%
29.2%
-18.9%
35.3%
17.2%
-25.7%
8.5%
31.7%
-28.8%
23.3%
3.4%
-6.7%

Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Arrests by Age, Sex, and Race and U.S. Census Data

Appendix A

  129


 TABLE A5

Racial Disparity in Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates by State (2010)

Arrest Rates per 100,000
State

Iowa
D.C.
Minnesota
Illinois
Wisconsin
Kentucky
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Nebraska
New York
Nevada
North Dakota
Kansas
Alabama
Vermont
Florida
Ohio
Tennessee
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Utah
Georgia
Montana
Indiana
North Carolina
Connecticut
Michigan
West Virginia
Wyoming
Louisiana
Arkansas
Delaware
Maryland
Oklahoma
New Jersey
Virginia
Idaho
South Carolina
Washington
New Hampshire
Missouri
Rhode Island
Arizona
Texas
California
Maine
Oregon
New Mexico
Colorado
Alaska
Hawaii
United States

Total

Black

White

Times More
Likely Blacks
Arrested

211
846
144
389
281
162
167
249
417
535
341
183
181
115
119
308
169
284
18
317
147
338
127
209
221
247
181
241
374
300
221
284
409
279
246
234
222
359
124
210
308
214
286
295
153
214
257
155
207
304
106
256

1,454
1,489
835
1,526
1,285
697
606
943
1,699
1,192
1,272
732
688
277
514
866
512
771
61
605
557
699
432
591
503
681
464
745
1,223
569
532
619
790
763
593
514
639
679
353
561
701
524
677
622
374
461
563
300
397
510
179
716

174
185
107
202
215
117
117
197
365
263
284
166
156
64
118
208
125
191
16
157
146
189
123
174
149
205
141
228
376
182
171
206
276
268
209
182
227
242
128
213
267
201
283
267
171
216
271
161
213
318
181
192

8.34
8.05
7.81
7.56
5.98
5.95
5.19
4.79
4.65
4.52
4.47
4.41
4.41
4.35
4.35
4.16
4.11
4.03
3.87
3.86
3.81
3.69
3.52
3.39
3.38
3.33
3.30
3.26
3.26
3.13
3.11
3.01
2.86
2.84
2.84
2.83
2.81
2.80
2.75
2.64
2.63
2.60
2.39
2.33
2.19
2.13
2.08
1.87
1.87
1.60
0.99
3.73

Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Arrests by Age, Sex, and Race and U.S. Census Data

130

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White

 TABLE A6
Percent Change in Racial Disparity in Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates by
State (2001-2010)
Racial Disparity
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
D.C.
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Times More Likely
Blacks Arrested (2001)

Times More Likely
Blacks Arrested (2010)

% Change in Racial
Disparity

2.6
0.3
2.4
2.0
2.5
3.0
2.2
4.6
3.0
3.6
2.2
1.0
2.2
5.7
2.7
6.3
2.9
2.4
2.3
1.7
2.0
2.2
1.3
2.4
2.3
2.4
5.3
9.5
3.6
2.7
2.1
1.2
4.0
2.5
3.5
1.9
2.2
2.3
3.7
2.7
1.8
5.3
1.8
1.9
2.6
2.9
2.1
1.9
3.5
2.4
2.8

4.4
1.6
2.4
3.1
2.2
1.9
3.3
8.0
3.0
4.2
3.7
1.0
2.8
7.6
3.4
8.3
4.4
6.0
3.1
2.1
2.9
3.9
3.3
7.8
3.9
2.6
3.5
4.6
4.5
2.6
2.8
1.9
4.5
3.4
4.4
4.1
2.8
2.1
5.2
2.6
2.8
4.8
4.0
2.3
3.8
4.4
2.8
2.7
3.3
6.0
3.3

67.1%
384.1%
0.0%
53.5%
-10.8%
-37.5%
53.7%
76.8%
0.0%
15.0%
71.0%
0.0%
28.2%
33.0%
24.2%
32.0%
50.2%
145.8%
33.3%
25.4%
44.4%
75.4%
149.3%
231.0%
68.9%
9.0%
-34.0%
-51.0%
23.9%
-0.6%
33.4%
51.9%
12.6%
36.3%
24.7%
118.1%
29.8%
-8.9%
38.6%
-4.1%
57.4%
-9.5%
121.7%
21.5%
49.1%
52.6%
37.2%
42.4%
-7.0%
153.0%
15.1%

Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Arrests by Age, Sex, and Race and U.S. Census Data

Appendix A

  131

 TABLE A7
Annual Fiscal Cost Estimates of Marijuana Possession Enforcement by State
(2010)
Fiscal Expenditures (in dollars)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
D.C.
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
United States

Low

Middle

High

4,392,606
2,531,400
28,245,142
4,671,434
152,537,632
12,627,071
15,516,520
9,607,214
4,208,648
77,938,064
38,007,888
2,476,326
3,874,670
78,744,768
12,643,076
7,706,796
6,655,185
5,832,540
14,228,912
3,205,790
36,001,112
2,973,921
30,988,868
14,399,496
5,723,253
17,657,698
1,936,396
7,999,439
14,370,383
2,463,242
41,405,908
3,465,111
229,002,496
19,837,282
1,264,110
38,592,652
10,437,594
16,725,914
30,580,662
4,062,350
16,667,885
1,840,336
14,437,048
83,905,992
4,558,895
1,550,619
21,805,582
11,093,001
5,565,508
15,632,073
3,060,325
1,195,656,830

13,286,772
8,466,300
85,822,232
13,194,514
490,966,080
37,706,564
49,826,212
26,527,716
13,234,181
228,635,840
121,898,152
8,148,947
11,884,452
221,431,776
38,480,904
22,845,638
20,182,786
19,499,768
46,450,368
8,868,964
106,702,784
9,327,650
94,838,792
42,071,288
16,740,772
49,119,612
6,161,866
22,809,270
41,601,604
6,526,364
127,343,512
11,079,450
678,450,560
54,934,668
3,722,051
120,148,064
30,829,904
50,194,024
100,748,528
11,851,363
49,540,640
5,551,929
42,948,820
251,648,800
14,070,766
4,887,939
67,244,864
34,626,312
17,375,348
44,366,056
9,148,026
3,613,969,792

22,180,938
14,401,201
143,399,328
21,717,594
829,394,496
62,786,060
84,135,904
43,448,220
22,259,714
379,333,632
205,788,416
13,821,568
19,894,234
364,118,784
64,318,728
37,984,480
33,710,388
33,166,998
78,671,824
14,532,138
177,404,464
15,681,380
158,688,720
69,743,080
27,758,290
80,581,528
10,387,336
37,619,100
68,832,824
10,589,486
213,281,120
18,693,788
1,127,898,624
90,032,056
6,179,993
201,703,472
51,222,216
83,662,136
170,916,400
19,640,376
82,413,392
9,263,521
71,460,592
419,391,616
23,582,638
8,225,259
112,684,144
58,159,620
29,185,190
73,100,040
15,235,727
6,032,282,773

Source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data, 2010 and Criminal Justice Expenditure and Employment
Extracts Program (CJEE), 2009

132

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White

 APPENDIX 

Analysis by State

AppendixB I 133

134 I The War on Marijuana in Black and White

4.4

Alabama

Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Pike 0

115+x

115

Dallas 0
Morgan 0

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

95+x

95

Coffee 8

277

64

All counties with racial disparities
above the national average (3.73)

25.7x

198

Chambers 9

13.7x

121
100

0

WHITE

55+x

55

0

BL AC K

200

100

300

200

400

300

400

500

500

600

700

600

800

700

800

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

22

Shelby

3.0x

65
111

Tuscaloosa

730
76

Baldwin

5.1x

387
58

Lee

7.8x

452

Morgan 0

55+x

55

00

6.6x

100
100

200
200

300
300

400
400

500
500

600
600

700
700

800
800

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
800
679

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

604
558

ARREST RATES

538
470

466

13,286,772

668

598

600

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

465

400
277
200

181

189
154

152

172

178

173
133
100

Marijuana
possession

All other
drug offenses

57.7%

42.3%

64
0

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

Appendix B

 

135

 1.6

Alaska


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >30,000

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

136

Juneau

668

3.0x

2,029

Fairbanks
North Star

Anchorage

Municipality

542

2.3x

1,262
177
286

0

250

WHITE

510

318

5.1x

688

Kenai Peninsula

BL AC K

All counties with racial disparities 

above the national average (3.73)


1.6x

500

750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

Anchorage
Municipality

177

1.6x

286
136

Juneau

5.1x

688

Ketchikan
Gateway 0

306

ValdezCordova (CA) 0

0x

108

0x

31

North Slope

1,050

0

150

300

450

600

750

900

33.3x

1,050

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
510
500

400

ARREST RATES

329

338
310

307
300

276 270

318

Marijuana
possession

196

80.6%

113
100

0

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

136

All
other drug
offenses

269
246
244
231
222 225 216

240
200

8,466,300

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

385
340

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White

19.4%

 2.4

Arizona


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*
Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Yuma

295

Graham

269

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

3.0 x

798
238
442
123
250
250

283

All counties with racial disparities 

above the national average (3.73)


2.2x

266

00

677

2.4x

1,065

Pinal

WHITE

2.6x

611

Pima

BL ACK

3.7x

1,081

Maricopa

Arrest Rates

500
500

750
750

1,000
1,000

1,250
1,250

1,500
1,500

1,750
1,750

2,000
2,000

2,250
2,250

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

238

Maricopa

2.6x

611
442

Pima

2.4x

1,065
123

Pinal

2.2x

266
379

Yavapai

2,132
292
324

Mohave
00

250
250

5.6x
1.1x

500
500

750

1,000
1,000

750

1,250
1,250

1,500
1,500

1,750
1,750

2,000
2,000

2,250
2,250

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
789

800

759

741

718

691

687

85,822,232

716

686

677

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

617
600

ARREST RATES

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

400
280

285

301

300

254

278

280

284

303

283

All other
drug offenses

56.2% 43.8%

200

0

Marijuana
possession

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

Appendix B

 

137

 3.1

Arkansas

Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities

Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

77

Independence

137

7.0x

960
114

Miller

235
1,125
139

Pope

150

300

450

600

171

All counties with racial disparities
above the national average (3.73)

4.8x
4.8x

663

0

532

5.4x

612

Sebastian

WHITE

8.7x

675

Craighead

BL AC K

750

900

1,050

1,200

Counties with the largest population

Includes all counties, listed in order of size

187

Pulaski

2.8x

530
244

Benton

3.1x

766
279

Washington

3.3x

926
235

Sebastian

1,125
191

Faulkner

3.4x

653

0

150

300

450

600

4.8x

750

900

1,050

1,200

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
600

560
520

513

459

ARREST RATES

13,194,514

532

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

448

412

396

400

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

366
332

200

196
170

165

164

177

192

172

175

176

171

Marijuana
possession

All other
drug offenses

46.1% 50.2%
0

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

138

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White

 2.2

California


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*


Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

44

San Francisco

123

4.1x

507
161

Lake
99

121

0

100

200

100

300

200

400

300

All counties with racial disparities
above the national average (3.73)

3.4 x

414
0

171

3.7 x

370

Kern

374

3.8 x

612

Sacramento

WHITE

4.3x

192

Marin

BL AC K

500

400

600

500

700

600

700

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size
164

Los Angeles

621

263

Orange
97

Riverside

479

253

153

San Bernardino

315
222

Santa Clara
124

Alameda

579

167

99

Sacramento

370

53

Contra Costa

148

156

Fresno
00

2.6x
2.6x
1.8 x
2.6x
2.1x
2.6x
1.3 x
3.7x
2.8x
2.6x

433

240

San Diego

100
100

400

200
200

300
300

400
400

500
500

600
600

Cost

700
700

Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
500

474

456

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

490,966,080

448

405
400

365

ARREST RATES

374

356

356

343

336

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

300

200
148

144

146

138

140

151

169

181

185

171

22.9

77.1%
22.9% 77.1%

100

0

Marijuana
Marijuana
All other
possession
possession
offenses
All other
% drug
drug7,365
offenses
6,310

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

Appendix B

 

139

 1.9

Colorado


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

191

Arapahoe

146

2.8x

407
17
27

Pueblo

397

213

All counties with racial disparities 

above the national average (3.73)


1.6x
435

Adams

1.2x

535

0

WHITE

3.2x

611

El Paso

BL AC K

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

146

El Paso

2.8x

407
152

Denver

0.5x

71
191

Arapahoe

3.2x

611
276

Jefferson

3.3x

912
435

Adams

1.2 x

535

00

100
100

200
200

300
300

400
400

500
500

600
600

700
700

800
800

900
900

1,000
1,000

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
800

656

653
618

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

ARREST RATES

600

461

458

451
402

397

400

209

214

225

226

228

243

235

Marijuana
All other
possession drug offenses
223

213

200

0

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

140

37,706,564

693

692

232

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White

60.7 % 39.3%

 3.3

Connecticut


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Middlesex

235

New London

243

Times more likely
Blacks arrested
1,608

113

Fairfield

148
314
200
200

All counties with racial disparities 

above the national average (3.73)


3.0x

943

00

205

3.4x

499

Hartford

681

3.4x

385

New Haven

WHITE

6.8x
4.7x

1,136

BL ACK

400
400

600
600

800
800

1,000
1,000

1,200
1,200

1,400
1,400

1,600
1,600

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

113

Fairfield

3.4 x

385
314

Hartford

3.0 x

943
148

New Haven

3.4 x

499
243

New London

4.7x

1,136
127

Litchfield

7.8 x

987

00

200
200

400
400

600
600

800
800

1,000
1,000

1,200
1,200

1,400
1,400

1,600
1,600

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
800

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

49,826,212

725
681

677

ARREST RATES

600

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

619

612
564

554
502
447
403

400

200

0

186

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

157

2002

156

2003

169

2004

162

2005

166

2006

165

2007

189

2008

195

2009

205

Marijuana
possession

All other
drug offenses

49.8% 50.2%

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

Appendix B

 

141

 3.0

Delaware

Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Arrest Rates

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest
Rates In All Counties*
Times more likely
Blacks arrested

Counties
204

Sussex

189
264

2.6x

681

0

100

200

300

400

500

619

206

3.1x

581

Kent

WHITE

3.5x

714

New Castle

BL AC K

600

700

All counties with racial disparities
above the national average (3.73)

800

Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010

800

656

638

635

619

605

ARREST RATES

600

570
492
430

400

342
307

200

166
104

0

2001

179

203

200

216

216

222

206

112

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Cost
Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

13,234,181

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

Marijuana
possession

All other
drug offenses

47.0% 53.0%
White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

142

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White

 8.0

District of Columbia


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

District-wide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
1,489

1500

BL ACK

WHITE

1,489

185

1,232

ARREST RATES

1,072
995

975

1000

1,119

The District’s racial disparity is
above the national average (3.73)

987

837
770

722

500

169

0

2001

152

2002

146

2003

164

2004

137

2005

131

2006

185
127

2007

127

2008

116

2009

2010

Cost
Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

26,527,716

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

Marijuana
possession

All other
drug offenses

46.9% 53.1%
White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

Appendix B

 

143

 4.2

Florida

Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Times more likely
Blacks arrested

Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

120

Sarasota

152

9.8 x

1,497
254

Pinellas

1,811

Alachua

189

Nassau

202

0

400

200

600

400

600

800

1,000

800

1,00

1,200

1,200

1,400

208

All counties with racial disparities
above the national average (3.73)

7.1 x

5.9 x

1,197
200

866

6.6 x

1,254

0

WHITE

10.0x

1,199

Martin

BL AC K

1,600

1,400 1,600

1,800

1,800

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

Miami-Dade

203

Broward

206

1,089

754

123

Palm Beach

587

213

Hillsborough

943

269

Orange

919

254

Pinellas

1,811

158

Duval

555

176

Lee

698

397

Polk

1,122

173

Brevard
0

841

200

400

600

800

1,00

1,200

1,400 1,600

5.4 x
3.7x
4.8x
4.4x
3.4x
7.1 x
3.5x
4.0x
2.8x
4.9x

Cost

1,800

Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
1,050

1,051

1,010
1000

970

937

889

ARREST RATES

600

Marijuana
possession

400

200

0

201

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

144

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

747

728

228,635,840

866

837
800

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

198

2002

210

2003

228

2004

233

2005

237

2006

242

2007

225

2008

209

2009

208

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White

All other
drug offenses

40.9% 59.1%

 3.7

Georgia


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

136

Gordon


1,921
215

Fulton

Oconee
 41

152
200
200

0

400
400

All counties with racial disparities 

above the national average (3.73)


4.4x

668
0

189

5.8x

373

Jackson


699

7.3x

296

65

DeKalb


WHITE

14.1x
7.5x

1,610

BL ACK

600
600

800
800

1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

215

Fulton

7.5 x

1,610

Gwinnett

67

DeKalb

65

2.4x

164

5.8x

373
183

Chatham

3.5x

637
247

Cherokee

2.8x

690

00

200
200

400
400

600
600

800
800

1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010


121,898,152

800
699

694
663

656

629

604

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

615

600

ARREST RATES

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

483

468
408
400

217

0

212

212

178

200

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

2002

2003

2004

199

2005

228

Marijuana All other
possession drug offenses

237
172

2006

2007

2008

172

2009

189

65.1% 34.9%

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

Appendix B

 

145

 Hawaii


Blacks are no more likely than whites to
be arrested for marijuana possession

Arrest Rates

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest
Rates In All Counties*
Counties

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

Data unavailable for Kalawao County
274

Hawaii

1,007
326

Maui
103
115

0

150

179

181

All counties


1.1 x
261

Kauai

WHITE

2.0x

668

Honolulu

3.7x

BL AC K

0x

300

450

600

750

900

1,050

Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010

200
181 179
161
144

ARREST RATES

150
118 117

119

117

119

109

104 107
96

100

139 142

125

123

94

95
87

50

Cost
0

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010




Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

8,148,947

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

Marijuana
possession

All other
drug offenses

51.7% 48.3%

White arrest rate

Black arrest rate


146

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White

 2.8

Idaho


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >20,000, Black population >0.5%

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

142

Bannock

5.4x

764
316

Ada

2.7x

864
155

Latah

233
108
129

00

100
100

200
200

639

227

All counties with racial disparities 

above the national average (3.73)


1.6x

384

Elmore

WHITE

2.1x

320

Canyon

BL AC K

1.2x
300
300

400
400

500
500

600
600

700
700

800
800

900
1,000
900
1,000

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

316

Ada

2.7x

864
233

Canyon

1.6 x

384
357

Kootenai

2.6x

932
158
152

Bonneville

1.0 x

142

Bannock

5.4x

764
0

100
100

0

200
200

300
300

400
400

500
500

600
600

700
700

800
800

900
900

1,000
1,000

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
639

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

11,884,452

600

ARREST RATES

470

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

466
423

403

398

400

363

340

336
273
214

215

200

201

202

183

197

217

205

205

227

Marijuana
possession

All other
drug offenses

52.0% 48.0%
0

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

Appendix B

 

147

 7.6

Illinois

Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

120

Stephenson

9.4 x

1,122

Jackson

76

Champaign

82

9.2 x

700

89
200

0

400

200

600

400

600

202

All counties with racial disparities
above the national average (3.73)

7.6 x

677
0

1,526

8.4x

1,342

Adams

WHITE

9.0 x

733
160

Peoria

BL AC K

800

1,000

800

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

256

Cook

1,831
129

DuPage

5.3x

691
149

Lake

5.8x

870
87

Will

5.0x

439
274

Kane

5.7x

1,564

00

200
200

400
400

600
600

7.2 x

800
800

1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
2000

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

221,431,776

1,658
1,516

1,511

1,532

1,526

1,431

1500

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

1,341

ARREST RATES

1,261
1,012

1,086

1000

Marijuana
possession
500
178
0

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

148

176

2002

186

2003

181

2004

192

2005

197

2006

205

2007

199

2008

206

2009

202

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White

All other
drug offenses

45.3% 54.7 %

 3.4

Indiana


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

177

Elkhart

7.0x

1,235
256

Floyd

1,641
138

Allen

94
205

200

400

174

All counties with racial disparities 

above the national average (3.73)


5.5x

1,132

0

591

5.6x

529

Hamilton

WHITE

6.4x

877

Knox

6.4x

BL ACK

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

98

Marion

4.7x

460
164

Lake

2.0x

334
138

Allen

6.4x

877
205

Hamilton

5.5x

1,132
129

St. Joseph

4.2x

538

00

200
200

400
400

600
600

800

1,000
1,000

800

1,200
1,200

1,400
1,400

1,600
1,600

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010


38,480,904

800

660

ARREST RATES

600

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

676

700
655

676
591

582

557
485

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

493

400

200

0

204

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

225

2002

197

2003

210

2004

221

2005

231

2006

202

2007

186

2008

194

2009

Marijuana
possession
174

All other
drug offenses

44.0% 56.0%

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

Appendix B

 

149

 8.3

Iowa

Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*


Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Times more likely
Blacks arrested

Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

181

Dubuque

251

Johnson

247

8.1x

2,036

284
157
250
250

500
500

750
750

1,000
1,000

1,250
1,250

All counties with racial disparities
above the national average (3.73)

7.3 x

1,148

00

174

7.3 x

2,090

Clinton

1,454

7.8 x

1,918

Linn

WHITE

10.0x

1,816

Woodbury

BL AC K

1,500
1,500

1,750
1,750

2,000
2,000

2,250
2,250

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

179

Polk

5.0 x

887
284

Linn

7.3 x

2,090
336

Scott

2,202
247

Johnson

7.8 x

1,918
315

Black Hawk

5.9x

1,850

00

250
250

500
500

750
750

1,000
1,000

1,250
1,250

1,500
1,500

1,750
1,750

2,000
2,000

6.6 x

2,250
2,250

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
2000

1,608
1,456

1500

ARREST RATES

1,252

22,845,638

1,650
1,453

1,411

1,509

1,454

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

1,233

1,064
1000

Marijuana
possession

168
0

All other
drug offenses

62.8 % 37.2%

500

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

150

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

186

2002

179

2003

177

2004

179

2005

179

2006

176

2007

160

2008

166

2009

174

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White

 4.4

Kansas


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

142

Montgomery

215
1,268

Crawford

128

Lyon

117
176
150
150

300
300

450
450

600
600

750
750

5.9x

All counties with racial disparities 

above the national average (3.73)


5.5x

961

0

156

5.6x

655

0

688

5.8x

743

Sedgwick

WHITE

6.4 x

906

Saline

BL ACK

900
900

1,050
1,050

1,200
1,200

1,350
1,350

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

176

Sedgwick

5.5x

961
159

Douglas

3.7x

583
40
82

Leavenworth

2.0x

116

Riley

3.0 x

343
102

Butler

3.6 x

365
0

150
150

0

300
300

450
450

600
600

750
750

900
900

1,050
1,050

1,200
1,200

1,350
1,350

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010

763
670
600

ARREST RATES

20,182,786

796

800

570

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

688

678

655

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010
576

548

400
331
229
200

0

198

194

217
177

153

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

2002

204

Marijuana
possession
180
138

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

156

All other
drug offenses

43.8% 56.2%

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

Appendix B

 

151

 6.0

Kentucky

Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Nelson 10

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

465

12.2x

5,686
235

Kenton

130
243
600
600

All counties with racial disparities
above the national average (3.73)

4.5x

1,086

00

117

5.2x

676

Barren

697

10.0x

2,348

Hardin

WHITE

32.1x

324

Campbell

BL AC K

1,200
1,800
2,400
1,200
1,800
2,400

3,00

3,000

3,600
4,200
4,800
5,400
3,600
4,200
4,800
5,400

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

Jefferson

278

Kenton

235

3.5 x

982

10.0x

2,348

Boone 17

65

3.8x

Warren 64

2.7x

173

130

Hardin

5.2 x

676

00

600
600

1,200
1,800
2,400
1,200
1,800
2,400

3,000

3,00

3,600
4,200
4,800
5,400
3,600
4,200
4,800
5,400

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
2000

1,916

1,929

ARREST RATES

19,499,768

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

1500

1,385
1,218
1,092

1000

890

874
798

789

697
500

416

361
285

290

0

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

2002

2003

2004

284

2005

168

2006

2007

Marijuana
possession All other
% drug offenses

31.8

444

330
117

152

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

2008

2009

117

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White

68.2%

 3.1

Louisiana

Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Times more likely

Blacks arrested


50

Tangipahoa

71

10.7 x

758
128

Lafourche
42
62

150
150

All counties with racial disparities
above the national average (3.73)

4.6 x

286

00

182

5.1 x

215

Terrebonne

569

6.6 x

841

Vermilion

WHITE

11.8 x

586

St. Landry

BL ACK

300
300

450
450

600
600

750
750

900
900

1,050
1,050

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

Data unavailable for Orleans County (New Orleans)


190

East Baton Rouge

4.6x

866
152

Jefferson

3.1x

472
255

Caddo

3.3x

855
323

St. Tammany

1,025
190

Lafayette

3.3x

632

00

150
150

300
300

450
450

600
600

3.2x

750
750

900
900

1,050
1,050

Cost

Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
800

743
642

ARREST RATES

600

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

448
395

400

239

0

46,450,368

569

554
452

200

632

629

620

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

192

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

261

237

258

249

211

196

2002

2003

2004

2005

Marijuana
possession

259

2006

2007

2008

2009

182

37.0%

All other
drug offenses

63.0%

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

Appendix B

 

153

 2.1

Maine

Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >20,000, Black population >0.5%

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

282

York

1,399
164

Kennebec

251

Penobscot

395
314

0

150
150

300
300

450
450

600
600

All counties with racial disparities
above the national average (3.73)

1.9 x

599
0

216

2.0x

796

Androscoggin

461

2.3x

583

Sagadahoc

WHITE

5.0x
2.5x

416

BL AC K

750
750

900
900

1,050
1,200
1,350
1,050
1,200
1,350

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

156
225

Cumberland

1.4 x

282

York

1,399
251

Penobscot

2.3x

583
164

Kennebec

2.5x

416
314

Androscoggin

1.9 x

599

00

150
150

300
300

450
450

5.0x

600
600

750
750

900
900

1,050
1,200
1,350
1,050
1,200
1,350

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
486

483

500

ARREST RATES

461

367

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

352

283
219

212

225
203

211

216

221

218

216

200

Marijuana
possession

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

154

All other
drug offenses

47.9% 52.1%

100

0

8,868,964

442
392

400

300

469

468
446

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White

 2.9

Maryland


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

288

Baltimore City

1,622
309

Cecil

344

Queen Anne’s

325
360
200
200

400
400

600
600

800
800

1,000
1,000

All counties with racial disparities
above the national average (3.73)

3.2x

1,162

00

276

3.4x

1,090

Caroline

790

3.7x

1,257

Talbot

WHITE

5.6x
3.9x

1,197

BL ACK

1,200
1,200

1,400
1,400

1,600
1,600

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

Montgomery

145

Prince George’s

148

3.2 x

463

2.4 x

358
331

Baltimore

2.0 x

666
288

Baltimore City

1,622
253

Anne Arundel

2.4 x

599
0

200

0

400

200

600

400

800

600

5.6 x

1,000

800

1,200

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,400

1,600

1,600

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
821
800

790

106,702,784

742
678

649
600

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

563

544

529

ARREST RATES

796

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

502

400
267

243

254

252

259

261

276

288

275

276

200

0

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Marijuana
possession

All other
drug offenses

49.9%

50.1%

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

Appendix B

 

155

 3.9

Massachusetts

times more likely than
Blacks are
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

18

Barnstable
6

10.5x

63

Suffolk

17

Norfolk

16

16

All counties with racial disparities 

above the national average (3.73)


4.2x

65
20

3.8x

75

0

61

4.8x

81

Bristol

WHITE

11.0x

194

Plymouth

BL AC K

50

100

150

200

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

10

Middlesex

3.5x

34

Worcester

19

Essex

16
17

Suffolk

17

Norfolk

16

2.0x

38

1.0x
4.8x

81

4.2x

65

0

50

100

150

200

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
500

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

9,327,650

446
427
403

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

ARREST RATES

400

Marijuana
possession

302

285

300

234

219
200

181
129
105

105

102

110

112

120

All other
drug offenses

118

100

81
61

0

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

156

2002

2003

9.5%

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

15

16

2009

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White

90.5%

 3.3

Michigan


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

46

Monroe

103

Jackson

90

10.1x

1,041

149

Kent

151

1,269

150
150

300
300

450
450

600
600

750
750

141

All counties with racial disparities
above the national average (3.73)

900
900

1,050
1,050

1,200
1,200

8.5 x
7.5 x

1,134

00

464

8.6x

769

Kalamazoo

WHITE

15.4x

710

St. Clair

BL ACK

1,350
1,350

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

174

Wayne

1.9 x

330

Oakland

119

Macomb

120

4.2x

498

5.0x

598
151

Kent

7.5 x

1,134
118

Genesee

3.4x

402

00

150
150

300
300

450
450

600
600

750
750

900
900

1,050
1,050

1,200
1,200

1,350
1,350




Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010

500


464


Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

94,838,792

436
401
400

398

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

378

ARREST RATES

336
300
257

241
219

214
200
162

150

143

142

137

136

127

127

128

141

100

0

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Marijuana
possession

All other
drug offenses

49.6%

50.4%

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

Appendix B

 

157


 7.8

Minnesota


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

118

Hennepin

1,069
101

Ramsey

94

Dakota

161
193
150
150

300
300

450

600
600

450

All counties with racial disparities 

above the national average (3.73)


5.2 x

1,001

00

107

5.5 x

880

Blue Earth

835

5.6 x

530

Stearns

WHITE

9.1x
7.4 x

753

BL AC K

750
750

900
900

1,050
1,050

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

118

Hennepin

1,069
101

Ramsey

7.4 x

753
94

Dakota

5.6 x

530
124

Anoka

3.7 x

453
139
195

Washington
00

150
150

9.1x

1.4 x

300
300

450

450

600
600

750
750

900
900

1,050
1,050

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
1,060
1000

42,071,288

1,067

950

929

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

933
835

800

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

ARREST RATES

690
600

400

200

0

139

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

158

133

2002

Marijuana
possession

377

365

329

124

2003

119

2004

All other
drug offenses

42.8% 57.2%
111

2005

103

2006

111

2007

109

2008

106

2009

107

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White

 3.9

Mississippi

Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities

Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

76

Jones

52

7.1x

368
105

Pearl River

215
124

200

400

600

All counties with racial disparities
above the national average (3.73)

5.7 x

708

0

157

6.3x

1,355

Hinds

605

6.6x

694

Forrest

WHITE

8.0 x

604

Lauderdale

BL ACK

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

124

Hinds

5.7x

708
319

Harrison

1,544
29
65

DeSoto

2.2x

Rankin

150

Jackson

163

3.7x

549

3.1x

499

0

4.8x

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
1,060
1000

1,067

950

929

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

16,740,772

933
835

800

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

ARREST RATES

690
600

400

200

0

139

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

133

2002

Marijuana
possession

377

365

329

124

2003

119

2004

111

2005

103

2006

111

2007

109

2008

106

2009

107

All other
drug offenses

42.8% 57.2%

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

Appendix B

 

159

 2.6

Missouri


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*


Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Times more likely
Blacks arrested

Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

St. Louis City 3

BL AC K

WHITE

701

267

18.4x

51
167

Pettis

308


Lafayette

2,408


Jasper

225


Butler

264

5.8x

1,523
250
250

500
500

750
750

7.8x
7.3x

1,646

00

All counties with racial disparities 

above the national average (3.73)


8.6 x

1,443

1,000
1,250
1,500
1,750
2,000
2,250
2,500
1,000
1,250
1,500
1,750
2,000
2,250
2,250



Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

331

St. Louis

3.3x

1,089
220

Jackson

2.2x

489
323

St. Charles

4.3x

1,376

St. Louis City 3

18.4 x

51
113

Greene

5.0 x

567

00

250
250

500
500

750
750

1,000
1,250
1,500
1,750
2,000
2,250
2,500
1,000
1,250
1,500
1,750
2,000
2,250
2,250



Cost
Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010

800


49,119,612

747
688

701

692

665

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

603

ARREST RATES

600


544
453

443

400


357
276

200


0

295

293

308

301
261

272

Marijuana
possession

267

188

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

160

528

All other
drug offenses

50.4% 49.6%
2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White




 3.5

Montana


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >20,000

Flathead

131

Yellowstone

122

Gallatin

138

Times more likely
Blacks arrested
1,375

2.3x

319

152
213

Missoula
0

150

WHITE

432

123

10.5x
4.1x

504

BL ACK

All counties with racial disparities 

above the national average (3.73)


1.4x

300

450

600

750

900

1,050 1,200 1,350

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

122

Yellowstone

4.1x

504
152
213

Missoula
Flathead

131

Gallatin

138

1.4x
1,375

10.5x
2.3x

319
127

Cascade 0
0

150
150

0

0x
300
300

450
450

600
600

750
750

900
900

1,050
1,200
1,350
1,050
1,200
1,350

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

6,161,866

500
445

432

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

400
355

ARREST RATES

335

335
305

300

287

271

Marijuana All other
possession drug offenses

207
200
135

128
100

76
51

143

137

126

116

123

70.2% 29.8%

59
20

0

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

Appendix B

 

161

 4.7

Nebraska


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >20,000, Black population >2%

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

338

Douglas

398

4.7x

1,873
457

Sarpy
284
200
200

0

400
400

600
600

365

All counties with racial disparities 

above the national average (3.73)


2.6x

733
0

1,699

3.2 x

1,476

Dakota

WHITE

5.4x

1,810

Lancaster

BL AC K

800
800

1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

338

Douglas

5.4 x

1,810
398

Lancaster

1,873
457

Sarpy

3.2x

1,476
508
495

Hall

1.0 x
647

Buffalo

0.7x

472

00

200
200

400
400

4.7x

600
600

800
800

1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
4000

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

22,809,270

3,278

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

ARREST RATES

3000

2,812

2,257

2,136

2,217

2,218
2,002

2000

2,067
1,915
1,699

72.8%

1000
345
0

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

162

All other
Marijuana drug offenses
possession
%

377

2002

290

2003

320

2004

344

2005

341

2006

347

2007

384

2008

341

2009

365

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White

27.2

 4.5

Nevada


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Times more likely
Blacks arrested

Population size >20,000, Black population >1.5%

200

Churchill

228

4.3 x

970
315

Clark

1,300
225

Nye
150

300

1,272

284

All counties with racial disparities 

above the national average (3.73)

4.1 x
1.4 x

325

0

WHITE

5.9 x

1,175

Washoe

BL ACK

450

600

750

900

1,050

1,200

1,350

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

315

Clark

1,300
228

Washoe

Lyon

4.3x

970
186
177

Carson City

4.1x

1.0 x

58

0x

0
116

Elko

1.9 x

218

0

150

300

450

600

750

900

1,050

1,200

1,350

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

41,601,604

1500
1,298

1,272

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

1,137

ARREST RATES

1,059
981

1000
813
741
678

646

559

Marijuana
possession

500

0

155

175

2001

2002

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

151

172

174

2003

2004

2005

192

2006

229

2007

227

2008

274

2009

284

All other
drug offenses

50.7 % 49.3%

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

Appendix B

 

163

 2.6

New Hampshire

Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Times more likely

Blacks arrested


Population size >20,000, Black population >0.5%

Cheshire

232

Merrimack

229

2,269

Strafford
Rockingham

177

Hillsborough

200

561

213

2,269

2.7x

488

2.1x

424
250
250

All counties with racial disparities
above the national average (3.73)

2.9x

529

00

WHITE

9.8 x

3.3x

759
182

BL AC K

500
500

750
750

1,000
1,250
1,000
1,250

1,500
1,750
1,500
1,750

2,000
2,250
2,000
2,250

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

200

Hillsborough

2.1x

424
177

Rockingham

2.7 x

488
229

Merrimack

3.3 x

759
182

Strafford

2.9 x

529
377

Grafton

2.0 x

748

00

200
200

400
400

600
600

800
800

1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
787

800

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

6,526,364

677
600

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

565

561

ARREST RATES

534
487
395

400
296

321
270
226
179

200

0

180

148

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

164

503

486

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

172

2007

185

2008

211

213

All other
drug offenses

53.5% 46.5%
2009

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White

Marijuana
possession

 2.8

New Jersey


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

315

Hunterdon

1,619
174

Ocean

283

Monmouth

211

Salem

204
400
400

600
600

800
800

All counties with racial disparities 

above the national average (3.73)


4.4x

905
200
200

209

4.5x

958

00

593

4.6x

1,295

Warren

WHITE

5.1x

4.8x

842

BL ACK

1,000
1,000

1,200
1,200

1,400
1,400

1,600
1,600

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

215

Bergen

2.9x

622

Middlesex

154

Essex

154

3.3x

513

3.1x

478
132

Hudson

2.3x

309
283

Monmouth

4.6x

1,295

00

200
200

400
400

600
600

800
800

1,000
1,000

1,200
1,200

1,400
1,400

1,600
1,600



Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010


127,343,512

616

593

600

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

548
524

504
478

ARREST RATES

439

442

436

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

440

400

206
200

195

199

194

196

198

215

225

213

Marijuana
possession

209

All other
drug offenses

43.4% 56.6%
0

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010




Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

Appendix B

 

165


 1.9

New Mexico


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Times more likely
Blacks arrested

Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Bernalillo 20

531

Chaves

1,572
227

Lea
Otero

2.9x

667

2.6x

434

Dona Ana

300

161

400

200

600

400

800

600

All counties with racial disparities 

above the national average (3.73)


1.7 x

733
200

3.0x

661
255

0

WHITE

3.9x

80

0

BL AC K

1,000

800

1,200

1,000

1,400

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,600

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

Bernalillo
 20

3.9x

80
434

Dona Ana


1.7 x

733
274

Santa Fe


2.4x

643
240

Sandoval


1.4 x

348
189

San Juan


2.4x

452

00

200
200

400
400

600
600

800
800

1,000
1,000

1,200
1,200

1,400
1,400

1,600
1,600

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
400

332

ARREST RATES

300

297

300

199
173

178

198

194

191

181
161

146

161
135

124

116

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

166

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White

Marijuana
possession All other
% drug offenses

31.4

100

2001

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

258

245

0

11,079,450

331

306

200

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

68.6%

 4.5

New York


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*


Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

161

Kings

208

9.4 x

1,952
391

Onondaga

3,029
280

Niagara

336
350
350

700
700

1,050
1,050

1,400
1,400

1,750
1,750

263

2,100
2,100

All counties with racial disparities
above the national average (3.73)

7.8 x

6.8x

2,291

00

1,192

7.6 x

2,114

Montgomery

WHITE

9.7 x

1,554

New York

BL ACK

2,450
2,450

2,800
2,800

3,150
3,150

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size
161

Kings
Queens
New York
Suffolk
Bronx
Nassau
Westchester
Erie
Monroe
Richmond

839

208

1,952

251

1,055

324
88

1,640

314
193

711
337

1,910

213

1,383

309

0

9.7 x
4.6x
9.4 x
4.2x
5.1x
3.6x
3.7x
5.7x
6.5x
4.5x

1,554

182

350

1,381

700

1,050

1,400

1,750

2,100

2,450

2,800

3,150

Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010

1500

1,192

ARREST RATES

1,129
1000

984

946

922

Cost
Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

678,450,560

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

980

883

848

806
734

Marijuana
possession

500

235

0

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

209

2002

202

2003

187

2004

182

2005

201

2006

209

2007

219

2008

232

2009

263

All other
drug offenses

59.4% 40.6%

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

Appendix B

 

167

 3.4

North Carolina


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Hoke
 8

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

106
149

6.7 x

1,001
257

Nash


1,718

Wayne
 35
00

503

149

6.7x

714

Surry


WHITE

9.6 x

81

Stanly


BL AC K

6.5 x

227
200
200

6.7 x

All counties with racial disparities 

above the national average (3.73)


400
400

600
600

800
800

1,000
1,000

1,200
1,200

1,400
1,400

1,600
1,600

1,800
1,800

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

112

Mecklenburg

4.6x

520
208

Wake

1.9 x

393
306

Guilford

3.2x

984
203

Forsyth

4.6x

926
42

Cumberland

3.4 x

141

00

200
200

400
400

600
600

800
800

1,000
1,000

1,200
1,200

1,400
1,400

1,600
1,600

1,800
1,800

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010

632

629

600

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

54,934,668

574
546

ARREST RATES

503

447

424

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

400

Marijuana
possession

228
200

0

195

195

189

171

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

168

519

500

497

2002

2003

2004

2005

184

2006

202

198
172

2007

2008

2009

149

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White

All other
drug offenses

53.6% 46.4%

 4.4

North Dakota


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >20,000, Black population >0.5%

Burleigh

220

Stutsman

217

Times more likely
Blacks arrested
1,411

281

Grand Forks
Stark

147

3.8x

573

150

300

450

166

All counties with racial disparities
above the national average (3.73)

3.3x

481

0

732

6.4x

4.1x

1,140
150

WHITE

6.1x

1,317

Ward

BL ACK

600

750

900

1,050 1,200 1,350 1,500

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

183

Cass

2.9x

529
220

Burleigh

1,411
150

Grand Forks

3.8x

573
281

Ward

4.1x

1,140
43

Morton

19.0x

809

0

150

300

450

600

6.4x

750

900

1,050 1,200 1,350 1,500

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
1000

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

3,722,051

937
874

ARREST RATES

800

746

732

730

631

618

601

570

600

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

488

Marijuana
possession

400

200

0

161

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

133

2002

157

2003

153

2004

178

2005

168

2006

197

2007

171

2008

171

2009

166

All other
drug offenses

56.6% 43.4%

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

Appendix B

 

169

 4.1

Ohio


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Columbiana 12

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

104

Stark

113

1,370

27

118
150
150

13.2x

All counties with racial disparities 

above the national average (3.73)


7.0 x

824

00

125

7.0 x

185

Portage

512

7.4 x

837

Scioto

WHITE

13.8x

161

Allen

BL AC K

300
300

450
450

600
600

750
750

900
900

1,050
1,200
1,350
1,050
1,200
1,350

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

91

Cuyahoga

6.2x

560
234

Franklin

1.6x

369
272

Hamilton

2.5x

689

Summit

152

Montgomery

82
138

6.8x

1,039

00

150
150

1.7x
300
300

450
450

600
600

750
750

900
900

1,050
1,200
1,350
1,050
1,200
1,350

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
600

560
514

512

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

433

ARREST RATES

400

362
293
262

200
156

155

150

157

146

152

121

138

134

125

0

2001
White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

170

120,148,064

540

465

464

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White

Marijuana
possession

All other
drug offenses

48.2% 51.8%

 2.8

Oklahoma


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

275

Kay

2,205
225

Creek

394

Pontotoc

2,078
245

Garfield

134
250
250

500
500

268

All counties with racial disparities 

above the national average (3.73)


5.3x

4.9 x

663

00

763

5.2x

1,278

Stephens

WHITE

8.0x
5.7x

1,286

BL ACK

750
750

1,000
1,000

1,250
1,250

1,500
1,750
2,000
2,250
1,500
1,750
2,000
2,250

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

270

Oklahoma

2.7x

724
199

Tulsa

2.4x

480
457

Cleveland

3.3x

1,518
235

Comanche

4.2x

983
258

Canadian

4.4x

1,128

00

250
250

500
500

750
750

1,000
1,000

1,250
1,250

1,500
1,500

1,750
1,750

2,000
2,000

2,250
2,250

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
886
800

30,829,904

881

836

825
763

736
701
654

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

650

622

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

ARREST RATES

600

400
299

321
288

310

291

294

304

286

291

268

All other
drug offenses

52.4% 47.6%

200

0

Marijuana
possession

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

Appendix B

 

171

 2.1

Oregon


times more likely than
Blacks are
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >20,000, Black population >1%

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

557

Lane

1,932
119

Multnomah

155
266

2.8x

736
329

Benton
200
200

400
400

271

600
600

All counties with racial disparities 

above the national average (3.73)


1.9 x

614

00

563

3.5x

2.8x

434

Marion

WHITE

3.3x

396

Washington

BL AC K

800
800

1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

119

Multnomah

3.3x

396

Washington

155

Clackamas

73
146

2.8x

434

2.0x
557

Lane

1,932
266

Marion

2.8x

736

00

200
200

400
400

600
600

800
800

3.5x

1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
600

563

548

539
502

483

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

50,194,024

533

497

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010
418

ARREST RATES

400

296
271
247
200

183

171

188

245
199

208

245

247

222

Marijuana
possession

All other
drug offenses

54.6% 45.4%
0

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

172

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White

 5.2

Pennsylvania

Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Times more likely

Blacks arrested


77

Lawrence

110
1,098

9.4x

345
60

Westmoreland

8.9x

535
105

Washington

150
150

300
300

450
450

600
600

750
750

117

900
900

All counties with racial disparities
above the national average (3.73)

8.6x

903

00

606

10.0x

37

Somerset

WHITE

11.2x

858

Lycoming

BL ACK

1,050
1,050

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

Philadelphia

137

Allegheny

128

4.9x

672

5.7x

730
106

Montgomery

4.2x

448

Bucks

135

Delaware

131

4.1x

549

3.3x

434

00

150
150

300
300

450
450

600
600

750
750

900
900

1,050
1,050

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

100,748,528

800
673
606

606

603

600

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

ARREST RATES

541
483

471
408

404

392

400

Marijuana
possession

%

200

0

108

107

105

110

107

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

111

2006

116

2007

119

115

117

2008

2009

2010

37.3

All other
drug offenses

62.7%

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

Appendix B

 

173

 2.6

Rhode Island

Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Racial disparities in all counties
Times more likely

Blacks arrested

215

Bristol

298
2,046
167

Kent

329
169

250

500

All counties with racial disparities
above the national average (3.73)

2.7x

457

0

201

2.8x

935

Providence

524

6.9x
3.8x

639

Newport

WHITE

7.4x

1,595

Washington

BL AC K

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

1,750

2,000

Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
800
699

530

ARREST RATES

581

578

600
537

528

525

524

489
444
400

200

195

182

192

207

197
161

171

160

172

201

Cost
0

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

11,851,363

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

174

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White

Marijuana
possession

All other
drug offenses

59.1%

40.9%

 2.8

South Carolina


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

85

Spartanburg

147

Oconee

145

3.9x

562
231
181
150
150

300
300

450
450

600
600

750
750

All counties with racial disparities 

above the national average (3.73)


3.8x

684

00

242

3.9x

892

Richland

679

4.3x

628

Newberry

WHITE

4.8x

409

Anderson

BL ACK

900
900

1,050
1,200
1,350
1,050
1,200
1,350

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

236

Greenville

3.5x

833
181

Richland

3.8x

684
435

Charleston

1,394
85

Spartanburg

4.8x

409
293

Horry

3.3x

975

00

150
150

300
300

450
450

3.2x

600
600

750
750

900
900

1,050
1,200
1,350
1,050
1,200
1,350

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010

49,540,640

800
679

678

672

638

635

ARREST RATES

600

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

572

544

411

408
400

367
289

268

279

278

273
242

229

212
182

200

0

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

All other
drug offenses

53.6% 46.4%

152

2001

Marijuana
possession

2009

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

Appendix B

 

175

 4.8

South Dakota


times more likely than
Blacks are
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >20,000, Black population >0.5%

Pennington

214

Brookings

196

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

244

3.7x

893
81
155
250
250

All counties with racial disparities 

above the national average (3.73)


3.5x

538

00

197

3.5x

282

Brown

943

5.5x

1,079

Yankton

WHITE

6.1x

1,308

Minnehaha

BL AC K

500
500

750
750

1,000
1,000

1,250
1,250

1,500
1,500

1,750
1,750

2,000
2,000

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

244

Minnehaha

3.7x

893
214

Pennington

6.1x

1,308
155

Brown

3.5x

538
196

Brookings

5.5x

1,079
299

Codington

2,040

00

250
250

500
500

750
750

1,000
1,000

1,250
1,250

1,500
1,500

1,750
1,750

6.8x

2,000
2,000

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
1500

1,502

1,472
1,280

1,256

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

1000

ARREST RATES

5,551,929

1,323

1,071
943

888

677
514

Marijuana
possession

500
284

267

268

248
111

0

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

176

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

2002

2003

2004

2005

151

2006

150

2007

205

2008

225

2009

197

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White

All other
drug offenses

50.0% 50.0%

 4.0

Tennessee


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

50

Monroe

143
176

Anderson

163

6.2 x

1,085

186
150
150

300
300

450
450

600
600

750
750

900
900

All counties with racial disparities 

above the national average (3.73)


5.4 x

1,002

00

191

6.0x

986

Blount

771

6.9x

991

Knox

WHITE

10.1x

501

Obion

BL ACK

1,050
1,050

1,200
1,200

1,350
1,350

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

162

Shelby

4.2x

679
334

Davidson

1,284
176

Knox

6.2x

1,085
207

Hamilton

2.7x

561
254

Rutherford

3.6x

921

00

150
150

300
300

450
450

600
600

3.8x

750
750

900
900

1,050
1,050

1,200
1,200

1,350
1,350

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
800

771

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

42,948,820

705

698
659

ARREST RATES

600

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

562

551
475

446
400
342

200

0

188

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

334

216

221

225

209

237

210

204

174

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

191

Marijuana
possession

All other
drug offenses

42.2% 57.8%

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

Appendix B

 

177

 2.3

Texas


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

71

Van Zandt

123

24.7x

3,029
411

Chambers

308
125

400

800

All counties with racial disparities 

above the national average (3.73)


6.5x

811

0

267

8.4 x

2,596

Waller

622

9.3x

3,822

Hopkins

WHITE

34.1x

2,403

Cooke

BL AC K

1,200 1,600 2,000 2,400 2,800 3,200 3,600 4,000

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size
218

Harris

665

131

Dallas

372
176

Tarrant

536
488

Bexar

1,092

311

Travis

1,011

326

El Paso
145

Collin

715

282
349

Hidalgo

544

169

Denton

463
238

Fort Bend
0

335

250

500

750

3.0x
2.8x
3.1x
2.2x
3.3x
2.2x
1.9x
1.6x
2.7x
1.4x

Cost

1,000

Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
800

600

622

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

453
420
380

400

237

255
212

214

236

242

257

250

270

267

0

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

2002

2003

Marijuana
possession

All other
drug offenses

53.5% 46.5%

200

178

251,648,800

550

526

ARREST RATES

651

634

604

584

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White

 3.8

Utah


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >20,000, Black population >0.5%

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

656

Iron

5,507

Utah

168

Tooele

116

Weber

108

146
5,507

All counties with racial disparities 

above the national average (3.73)


6.1x

661
79

5.2 x

413

0

557

7.8 x

904

Washington

WHITE

8.4 x
7.9 x

1,331

BL ACK

600

1,200

1,800 2,400

3,000 3,600

4,200

4,800

5,400

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

140
360

Salt Lake

2.6x

168

Utah

7.9x

1,331

Davis
Weber

136
346

2.6x

108

6.1x

661
79

Washington

5.2x

413

0

600

1,200

1,800 2,400

3,000 3,600

4,200

4,800

5,400

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
600

557
489
414

ARREST RATES

410
400

200

183

167

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

2002

2003

379

Marijuana
possession

170

2004

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

411

380

378

142

0

14,070,766

517

506

198

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

2005

153

2006

150

2007

153

2008

156

2009

146

35.8

%

All other
drug offenses

64.2%

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

Appendix B

 

179

 4.4

Vermont

Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >20,000, Black population >0.5%

Times more likely

Blacks arrested


117


Rutland

1,962

136


Caledonia

124


4.7x

584

78

3.8 x

296
0

200

0

400

200

400

118

6.8x

928


Chittenden

514

All counties with racial disparities
above the national average (3.73)

9.6x

1,815

Windsor

WHITE

16.8x


190


Windham

BL AC K

600

600

800

1,000

800

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000




Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

78

Chittenden

3.8x

296
117


Rutland

1,962

16.8x

99

Washington

0x

0
136


Windsor

6.8x

928


Franklin
 0 90
00

200
200

0x
400
400

600
600

800
800

1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000




Cost
Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010


4,887,939

800

724


718


574

600


Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

568

ARREST RATES

529
437
400

316


302

Marijuana
possession

200

111


0

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

180

514


491

115

2002

119

2003

134

2004

132

2005

158

2006

134

2007

130

2008

134

2009

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White

53.3% 46.7%

118

2010

All other
drug offenses




 2.8

Virginia


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

86

Arlington

168
1,282
134

Smyth

167

Warren

156
300

150

450

300

600
600

450

750
750

900
900

7.6 x

All counties with racial disparities
above the national average (3.73)

6.2 x

967
150

182

6.3 x

1,046

00

514

6.7x

898

Montgomery

WHITE

7.8 x

669

Botetourt

BL ACK

1,050
1,050

1,200
1,200

1,350
1,350

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

Fairfax

195

Virginia
Beach City

187

3.1x

604

2.4x

447
308

Prince William

2.1x

646
238

Chesterfield

3.0x

705
146

Loudoun

3.0x

431

00

150
150

300
300

450
450

600
600

750
750

900
900

1,050
1,050

1,200
1,200

1,350
1,350

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
516

514

513
492

500

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

67,244,864

439
413
400

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

379

ARREST RATES

343
324

315
300

200
153

171
146

143

144

144

174

171

182

148

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

2002

2003

2004

2005

All other
drug offenses

53.8% 46.2%

100

0

Marijuana
possession

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

Appendix B

 

181

 2.8

Washington


times more likely than
Blacks are
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*


Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

154

Pierce

650
93

Kitsap

199

Franklin
84
110
100

0

200

100

300

200

All counties with racial disparities 

above the national average (3.73)


2.3x

251
0

128

2.6x

223

Snohomish

353

2.8x

561

Island

WHITE

4.2x
4.1x

376

BL AC K

400

300

500

400

600

500

700

600

700

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

96

King

2.3x

217
154

Pierce

650
110

Snohomish

2.3x

251
27

Clark

2.0x

56
93

Kitsap

4.1x

376

00

4.2x

100
100

200
200

300
300

400
400

500
500

600
600

700
700

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
512

500


465

ARREST RATES

348

339

353

337
307

305

300
237
200

180
158

180

165
125

Marijuana
possession

178

144

141

122

128

100

0

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

182

34,626,312

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

391

400

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White

33.7

%

All other
drug offenses

66.3%

 3.3

West Virginia


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

138

Cabell

101

6.8x

689
115

Ohio

144
725

5.0x

714

4.4x

164

Monongalia
00

150
150

300
300

450
450

600
600

745

228

All counties with racial disparities 

above the national average (3.73)


5.6x

648

Mercer

WHITE

7.3 x

1,005

Hancock

BL ACK

750
750

900
900

1,050
1,050

1,200
1,200

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

351

Kanawha

1,123
239

Berkeley

4.2x

1,014
164

Monongalia

4.4x

714
138

Cabell

7.3 x

1,005
117

Wood

8.8x

1,027

00

150
150

300
300

450
450

600
600

750
750

3.2 x

900
900

1,050
1,050

1,200
1,200

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010

17,375,348

869
800

760

745

721
685

662

644

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

613

ARREST RATES

600

400

347
303

274

266
228

200

183
97

0

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

2002

122

2003

147

148

2004

2005

170
116

2006

2007

2008

2009

Marijuana
possession

All other
drug offenses

55.1% 44.9%

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

Appendix B

 

183

 6.0

Wisconsin


times more likely than
Blacks are
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >30,000, Black population >2%

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

172

Brown

244

6.6 x

1,604
285

Dane

1,848
226

Racine

254
200

0

400

200

400

600

600

800

800

1,000

215

6.5 x

All counties with racial disparities 

above the national average (3.73)


4.7x

1,201
0

1,285

4.8x

1,085

Milwaukee

WHITE

7.6 x

1,310

Rock

BL AC K

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

254

Milwaukee

4.7x

1,201
285

Dane

1,848
131

Waukesha


12.7x

1,663
172

Brown


7.6 x

1,310
226

Racine


4.8x

1,085

00

200
200

400
400

600
600

800
800

6.5 x

1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010
1500

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

44,366,056

1,285
1,209
1,116
1000

ARREST RATES

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010

1,104

970

727

679
597

Marijuana
possession

537
472

500
252

245

255

228

233

220

214

214

215

142
0

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

184

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

  The War on Marijuana in Black and White

All other
drug offenses

60.9% 39.1%

 3.2

Wyoming


Blacks are
times more likely than
whites to be arrested for marijuana possession

Racial Disparities In Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates*

Arrest Rates

Counties with the largest disparities
Population size >20,000, Black population >0.5%

Times more likely
Blacks arrested

492

Natrona

752

3.3x

2,467
470

Sweetwater

3.0x

1,427
441

Laramie

500

0

1,000

500

1,000

1,223

376

All counties with racial disparities 

above the national average (3.73)


2.4x

1,048
0

WHITE

3.9x

1,913

Albany

BL ACK

1,500

2,000

1,500

2,500

2,000

2,500

Counties with the largest population
Includes all counties, listed in order of size

441

Laramie

2.4x

1,048
492

Natrona

3.9x

1,913
454
570

Campbell

1.3x

470

Sweetwater

3.0x

1,427

Fremont 0 132
00

0x
500
500

1,000
1,000

1,500
1,500

2,000
2,000

2,500
2,500

Cost
Statewide marijuana possession arrest rates 2001-2010

1,494

1500

1,253

9,148,026

1,223

1,152

ARREST RATES

Money spent enforcing marijuana
possession
$
laws in 2010:

Drug Arrests by Offense in 2010
1,005

1,002

1000

889

500

0

407

2001

White arrest rate
Black arrest rate

366

2002

403
346

2003

2004

364

2005

404

376

Marijuana
possession

%

67.1
2006

All other
drug offenses

32.9%

2010

Source: FBI / Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data
*All arrest rates are per 100,000 and based on 2010 data

Appendix B

 

185

 THE WAR ON
MARIJUANA
IN BLACK 

AND WHITE


Over the last twenty years, police have turned much of
their zeal for fighting the failed War on Drugs towards
the enforcement of marijuana laws in communities
across the country – with disastrous consequences.
The aggressive enforcement of marijuana possession
laws needlessly ensnares hundreds of thousands of
people into the criminal justice system, crowds our
jails, wastes billions of taxpayers’ dollars, fails to
reduce marijuana use and availability, diverts precious
police resources away from focusing on serious crimes,
and is carried out in a racially biased manner.
It’s time to call off the failed War on Marijuana.