• Drug Policy - Law Enforcement & Prisons - Question of the Week

    Changing Prisoner Numbers

    Drug Policy Question of the Week – 2-15-12

    As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 2-15-12. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3752

    Question of the Week: Why have the counts of drug prisoners changed?

    Government reports are notoriously foggy when it comes to those incarcerated for “drugs.” Divining these elusive numbers requires a spreadsheet and a detailed search of the Bureau of Justice Statistics for numbers buried in some years, but missing from others. Some numbers must simply be computed.

    This is the case with probation and parole, for which two different values are reported. For example, Appendix Table 15 of the “Probation and Parole in the United States 2009” report displays percentages for “Characteristics of adults on parole,” including those for “Drug” as the “Most Serious Offense.”   This table indicates that 36% of parolees had “Drugs” as their most serious offense in 2009. Multiplying the 819,000 total 2009 parolees times this 36% produces a count of 295,000 of parolees with “Drug” offenses. However, the numeric counts of “drug” parolees reported in the report’s Appendix Table 20 produce a lesser percentage of parolees with drug offenses – 32%. The same problem can be found in the probation numbers.

    Further, reports going back to 1990 contain these kinds of percentages, enabling better trending.

    Thus, the new Drug War Facts table that displays the number persons under the control of the U.S. corrections system has been updated with numbers derived from the percentage of total calculations.

    Here’s the bottom line. Over 1.7 million probationers, parolees and state and federal prisoners were under the control of the U.S. corrections in 2009 with “drugs” as their most serious offense. This represents over one quarter of the estimated 7.3 million individuals on probation, parole or in prison that year.

    These facts and others like them in the Prisons & Drug Offenders Chapter of Drug War Facts at www.drugwarfacts.org.

  • Announcements - Drug Policy - Hot Off The 'Net

    Changing the Frame: A New Approach to Drug Policy in Canada

    Today, members of the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition (CDPC) released their foundational paper on drug policy reform outlining the Coalition’s vision and plans for creating a new drug policy for Canada.

    The paper, Changing the Frame: A New Approach to Drug Policy in Canada, also calls on the Federal Government and the Senate to take a giant step back from Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, and rethink their approach to Canada’s drug policies for the sake of all Canadians.

    “The research is in. It is clear that the ‘war on drugs’ approach of prohibition, criminalization and incarceration does not work to reduce harms associated with substance use in Canada. Bill C-10 will only exacerbate them, taking us further down a failing path. It is time for a principled, evidence-driven, pragmatic and humane reform of our drug laws and policies,” said Donald MacPherson, Director of the Coalition.

    The CDPC is a new national organization of public health officials, researchers, front-line harm reduction and treatment providers, HIV/AIDS service organizations and people who use drugs who are seeking to engage communities to help chart a new direction.

    “We need to acknowledge the limits of the current approach and that the criminal law deflects attention from getting to the heart of why some people use drugs in a way that causes harm to themselves and to their families and communities. The CDPC strives for a more inclusive society,” said Coalition Chair, Lynne Belle-Isle. “We want to engage Canadians in finding new and innovative solutions to a problem that affects us all.”

    The Coalition held its first two of their planned series of cross-country community dialogues in Vancouver and Edmonton in the fall of 2011. The group is urging broad base citizen participation to explore ideas for reform of Canada’s laws and policies on currently illegal drugs.

    Quebec Conservative Senator Pierre Claude Nolin also indicated his support for the work of the Coalition. “The CDPC’s policy paper and leadership on drug policy reform is an important step forward in engaging Canadians in the process of modernizing our drug policies and legislation,” said Nolin. Senator Nolin strongly opposes the passing of the Safe Streets and Communities Act particularly because it supports continued prohibition of cannabis and further criminalization of young cannabis users.

    To read a copy of Changing the Frame: A new approach to drug policy in Canada, please visit our website, www.drugpolicy.ca, follow our coverage of the Crime Bill C-10 Hearings here: www.drugpolicy.ca/blog or join the conversation on our Facebook page and follow the latest related news on Twitter @CanDrugPolicy.

  • Drug Policy - Law Enforcement & Prisons - Question of the Week

    US Criminal Justice System

    Drug Policy Question of the Week – 1-11-12

    As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 1-11-12. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3706

    Question of the Week: How many people are under the control of the U.S. criminal justice system?

    An April 2011 report by the Justice Policy Institute begins by stating,

    “The United States is home to the world’s largest prison population. … the U.S. has only 5 percent of the world’s population but holds 25 percent of the world’s prisoners …”

    There are several components to the U.S. criminal justice system. Quoting the Institute,

    “The entry point into the criminal justice system is typically through law enforcement. … In the U.S., when a person is charged with an offense they may be detained in jail until their trial or they may be released to await their trial in the community through a variety of mechanisms … people are said to be “remanded,” which is a summons to appear before a judge at a later date. If they are not released pretrial they can be “remanded to custody” until their court proceeding; if they are convicted, they can be remanded to custody prior to sentencing or during an appeal process … Pretrial detention is associated with a higher likelihood of both being found guilty and receiving a sentence of incarceration over probation, thus forcing a person further into the criminal justice system. In the United States, this is particularly important because of the sheer numbers”

    What are those numbers?

    In 2010 there were approximately:

    4,000,000 people on probation

    840,000 on parole

    207,000 in federal prison

    1,300,000 in state prison

    and 749,000 in local jails

    For a total of 7,100,000 people under the control of the U.S. Criminal Justice system.

    These facts and others like them can be found in the “U.S. Corrections Population” Table in  Prisons & Jails Chapter of Drug War Facts at www.drugwarfacts.org.

  • Cannabis & Hemp - Drug Policy - Law Enforcement & Prisons - Question of the Week

    Marijuana Prisoners

    Drug Policy Question of the Week – 12-19-11

    As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 12-19-11. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3677

    Question of the Week: How many people are in prison for marijuana?

    Aficionados will recall that there are important statistics in drug policy that must be computed. These include the number of marijuana arrests and the number of people behind bars for marijuana offenses.

    To calculate the number of “marijuana prisoners,” two reports are necessary.

    Report #1 is “Prisoners in 2004,” from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Table 1, page 2. Find these numbers:

    Total Federal Prisoners in 2004 =  170,535

    Total State Prisoners in 2004 =  1,244,311

    Report #2 is, “Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners, 2004,” again from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, page. 4. Find these numbers:

    Percent of federal prisoners held for drug law violations in 2004 = 55%

    Percent of state prisoners held for drug law violations in 2004 = 21%

    Marijuana/hashish, Percent of federal drug offenders, 2004 = 12.4%

    Marijuana/hashish, Percent of state drug offenders, 2004 = 12.7%

    Now, do the math,

    Multiply total prisoners times the percent of prisoners held for drug law violations. Then multiply this product times the percentage of marijuana offenders. The result is:

    Federal marijuana prisoners, 2004 = 11,630

    State marijuana prisoners, 2004 = 33,186

    Total federal and state marijuana prisoners in 2004 = 44,816

    Thus, those in prison for marijuana offenses represent about 12.6% of those incarcerated for drug law violations and 3.2% of total state and federal prisoners. It should be noted that these numbers exclude those among the 700,000+ inmates who may be in local jail because of a marijuana arrest.

    These facts and others like them can be found in the Prisons and Drugs Chapter of Drug War Facts at www.drugwarfacts.org.

  • Cannabis & Hemp - Drug Policy - Question of the Week

    Cannabis rescheduling

    Drug Policy Question of the Week – 12-15-11

    As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 12-15-11. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3671

    Question of the Week: How can cannabis be rescheduled?

    According to the Congressional Research Service, the current scheduling scheme for various drugs called the Controlled Substances Act

    “was signed into law as the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.”

    Found under Title 21 of the U.S. Commercial Code. Subchapter I, Section 812 the CSA

    “established five schedules of controlled substances, to be known as schedules I, II, III, IV, and V.”

    In “Initial Schedules of Controlled Substances,” the CSA placed marijuana and its derivatives under Schedule 1, the most restrictive of the five categories.

    Note usage of the term initial. In theory, the schedule of cannabis or any other drug (there are hundreds) can be upgraded (to a more restrictive schedule) or downgraded (to a less restrictive one).

    The Congressional Research Service unfortunately notes that

    “Lawmakers have repeatedly rebuffed campaigns to reschedule marijuana under the CSA, a step that would permit marijuana to be used for some medical purposes. Likewise, courts have refused to carve out exceptions to the CSA, even for individuals who claim a dire need for the drug.”

    Thus, Congress has the authority to reschedule, as do the courts given the right case, but so far neither has done so.

    Robert Miklos in the Stanford Law Review counters that,

    “the CSA authorizes the Attorney General to [reschedule], in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the DEA. … the President would not need the consent of Congress to make this more fundamental change to federal law.”

    Thus, the President and his Executive Branch have the authority to reschedule cannabis, but so far refuse to do so.

    These facts and others like them can be found in the Crime and Medical Marijuana Chapters of Drug War Facts at www.drugwarfacts.org.

  • Cannabis & Hemp - Drug Policy - Question of the Week

    Synthetic Cannabinoids

    Drug Policy Question of the Week – 11-30-11

    As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 11-30-11. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3650

    Question of the Week: What are synthetic cannabinoids?

    As described in an October 2011 report by Congressional Research Service,

    “Synthetic cannabinoids are substances chemically produced to mimic tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient in marijuana. When these substances are sprayed onto dried herbs and then consumed through smoking or oral ingestion, they can produce psychoactive effects similar to those of marijuana.”

    A September 2011 issue of Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, explains that these agents are

    “… sold on the Internet as herbal mixtures under the brand names of “Spice,” “Spice Gold,” “Spice Diamond,” “Arctic Spice,” “Silver,” “Aroma,” “K2,” “Genie,” “Scene” or “Dream,” and advertised as incense products, meditation potpourris, bath additives, or air fresheners. These products are often referred to as “herbal highs” or “legal highs””

    They were developed according to the CRS by

    “Clemson University Professor John Huffman [who] is credited with first synthesizing some of the cannabinoids, such as JWH-018, now used in “fake pot” substances such as K2. The effects of JWH-018 can be 10 times stronger than those of THC.”

    Current Psychiatry reported that

    “many have been banned in several European countries, 18 U.S. states, and the U.S. military. In March 2011, the FDA placed 5 synthetic cannabinoids on Schedule I, making them illegal to possess or sell in the United States.”

    However, the CRS notes concerns about the DEA’s action, stating that,

    “Professor Huffman did not intend for K2 to be consumed by humans. He is, however, against adding synthetic cannabinoids to Schedule I, asserting that there is still much to learn about [them] …  Professor Huffman has created several synthetic cannabinoids that are seen as showing promise in treating skin cancers, pain, and inflammation.”

    These facts and others like them can be found in the Marijuana Chapter of Drug War Facts at www.drugwarfacts.org.

  • Drug Policy - Question of the Week

    Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

    Drug Policy Question of the Week – 11-21-11

    As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 11-21-11. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3639

    Question of the Week: What are mandatory minimum sentences?

    As described by the Sentencing Project,

    “Along with the stepped-up pace of arrests in the 1980s, legislatures throughout the country adopted harsher sentencing laws in regard to drug offenses. The federal system, in particular, led the way with the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 and … of 1988. Among a number of provisions, these laws created a host of severe mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drug offenses and affected the calibration of the federal Sentencing Guidelines, which were being formulated simultaneous to these statutory changes. The result of these developments was to remove discretion from the sentencing judge to consider the range of factors pertaining to the individual and the offense that would normally be an integral aspect of the sentencing process, thereby increasing the number of individuals in federal court exposed to a term of incarceration for a drug offense.”

    In its recent report to Congress, the United States Sentencing Commission contended that,

    “Sentencing data and interviews with prosecutors and defense attorneys indicate that mandatory minimum penalties that are considered excessively severe tend to be applied inconsistently.”

    The other unintended consequences of mandatory minimum penalties were enumerated by The Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing to include,

    “significant increases in the costs of corrections due to longer prison terms and an increasing prison population; removal from consideration of other sentencing options that may prove to be less costly and/or more effective than mandatory incarceration; and Impact on … pleas or verdicts and offender eligibility for rehabilitation programs and early release.”

    The Commission concluded,

    “Addressing the growth in the state prison population, particularly involving drug-related offenders, requires systemic change.”

    These facts and others like them can be found in the Mandatory Minimum Sentencing chapter of Drug War Facts at www.drugwarfacts.org.

  • Drug Policy - Hot Off The 'Net

    Count the Costs

    By George Murkin

    Far from eliminating drug use and the illicit trade, prohibition has inadvertently fuelled the development of the world’s largest illegal commodities market – a market worth hundreds of billions of dollars, controlled solely by criminal profiteers. Produced in collaboration with project supporters Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, Transform Drug Policy Foundation, Release, the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy and Harm Reduction International, the latest Count the Costs briefing outlines how this illicit, unregulated market generates:

    Organised crime
    Street crime
    Mass incarceration
    Violent crime
    Crimes perpetrated by governments/states
    Vast economic costs in terms of drug war-related enforcement

    The briefing will form a key part of our outreach to mainstream NGOs working in the criminal justice sector, building on the endorsements Count the Costs has already received from organisations such as the Howard League for Penal Reform and Make Justice Work.