Skip navigation.
Home

Crime, Arrests, and US Law Enforcement

Subsection Links:
Basic Data
Law and Policy
Sociopolitical and Economic Research
Transnational Organized Crime

Links for Data Tables
Value of Transnational Organized Crime
Estimated Annual Arrest Totals, By Year And Crime Category
Marijuana Arrests, Percent Share of Total Drug Arrests By Year
Annual Percent Change in Drug and Marijuana Arrests

Police encounters don't have to end in an arrest, or worse. The organization Flex Your Rights has put together a comprehensive guide for citizens on how to properly handle encounters with law enforcement, preserving both personal and public safety as well as one's civil rights. Learn more at their website, FlexYourRights.org.

  1. Basic Data

    (Total Annual Drug Arrests in the US, by Type)
    (2012) Of the 1,552,432 arrests for drug law violations in 2012, 82.2% (1,276,099) were for possession of a controlled substance. Only 17.8% (276,333) were for the sale or manufacturing of a drug.

    (2011) Of the 1,531,251 arrests for drug law violations in 2011, 81.8% (1,252,563) were for possession of a controlled substance. Only 18.2% (278,687) were for the sale or manufacturing of a drug.

    (2010) Of the 1,638,846 arrests for drug law violations in 2010, 81.9% (1,342,215) were for possession of a controlled substance. Only 18.1% (296,631) were for the sale or manufacture of a drug.

    (2007) Of the 1,841,182 arrests for drug law violations in 2007, 82.5% (1,518,975) were for possession of a controlled substance. Only 17.5% (322,207) were for the sale or manufacture of a drug.

    Source: 
    "Crime in the United States 2012 - Arrests," FBI Uniform Crime Report (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, September 2013), p. 1.
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-...
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-...
    "Crime in the United States 2011 - Arrests," FBI Uniform Crime Report (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, October 2012), p. 1.
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-...
    Arrests for Drug Abuse Violations, 2011: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-...
    "Crime in the United States 2010," FBI Uniform Crime Report (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, September 2011), Table 29.
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-...
    Arrests for Drug Abuse Violations, 2010: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-...
    "2007 Crime in the United States," (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, September 2008), Table 29.
    http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_29.html
    Arrests for Drug Abuse Violations, 2007: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/arrests/index.html

  2. (Total Number of Arrests in the US, 1973 and 2012) In 1973, there were 328,670 arrests reported by the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) for drug law violations, out of a total 9,027,700 arrests nationwide for all offenses. Also that year, authorities reported 380,560 arrests for all violent crimes and 1,448,700 arrests for all property offenses.

    In 2012, the number of arrests for drug law violations rose to 1,552,432 out of a total 12,196,959 arrests nationwide for all offenses. Also in 2012, authorities reported 521,196 arrests for all violent crimes and 1,646,212 for all property offenses.

    Source: 
    FBI Uniform Crime Reports 1973 (1973 drug arrest data supplied by the National Criminal Justice Reference Service)
    Violent and Property Crime Arrest Datasheet 1970-2003, Bureau of Justice Statistics, accessed Oct. 29, 2012.
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/data/arrests.csv
    "Crime in the United States 2012 - Arrests," FBI Uniform Crime Report (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, September 2013), p. 1.
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-...
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-...
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-...

  3. (Drug Arrests in the US, by Drug Type and Possession vs. Sale/Manufacture)

    Arrests for Illicit Drugs in the US, 2012, by Drug Type
    Figures in Percents
    Sale/Manufacture Possession
    Year Total Number
    of Drug Arrests
    Sale/Manu.
    Any Drug
    Heroin, Cocaine,
    and Derivatives
    Marijuana Synthetic or
    Manufactured Drugs
    Other Dangerous
    Nonnarcotic Drugs
    Possession
    Any Drug
    Heroin, Cocaine,
    and Derivatives
    Marijuana Synthetic or
    Manufactured Drugs
    Other Dangerous
    Nonnarcotic Drugs
    2012 1,552,432 17.8% 6.1% 5.9% 1.9% 4.0% 82.2% 16.5% 42.4% 4.5% 18.7%
    2011 1,531,251 18.2% 6.3% 6.2% 1.8% 4.0% 81.8% 16.7% 43.3% 4.6% 17.2%
    2010 1,638,846 18.1% 6.2% 6.3% 1.8% 3.7% 81.9% 16.4% 45.8% 4.1% 15.7%
    2009 1,663,582 18.4% 7.1% 6.0% 1.7% 3.5% 81.6% 17.7% 45.6% 3.7% 14.6%
    2008 1,702,537 17.7% 7.7% 5.5% 1.5% 3.0% 82.3% 20.1% 44.3% 3.3% 14.6%
    2007 1,841,182 17.5% 7.9% 5.3% 1.5% 2.8% 82.5% 21.5% 42.1% 3.3% 15.6%
    2006 1,889,810 17.5% 8.0% 4.8% 1.5% 3.2% 82.5% 22.8% 39.1% 3.4% 17.2%
    2005 1,846,351 18.3% 8.0% 4.9% 1.4% 4.0% 81.7% 22.2% 37.7% 3.4% 18.3%
    2004 1,746,570 18.3% 8.4% 5.0% 1.6% 3.4% 81.7% 22.0% 39.2% 3.5% 17.0%
    2003 1,678,192 19.4% 8.8% 5.5% 1.5% 3.6% 80.6% 21.5% 39.5% 3.1% 16.6%
    2002 1,538,813 19.7% 8.8% 5.4% 1.4% 4.0% 80.3% 21.3% 39.9% 3.0% 16.0%
    2001 1,586,902 19.4% 9.7% 5.2% 1.4% 3.1% 80.6% 23.1% 40.4% 2.7% 14.4%
    Source: 
    "Crime in the United States 2012 - Arrests," FBI Uniform Crime Report (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, September 2013), p. 1.
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-...
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-...
    "Crime in the United States 2011 - Arrests," FBI Uniform Crime Report (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, October 2012), p. 1.
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-...
    Arrests for Drug Abuse Violations: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-...
    "Crime in the United States 2010," FBI Uniform Crime Report (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, September 2011), Table 29.
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-...
    Arrests for Drug Abuse Violations: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-...
    "Crime in the United States 2009," FBI Uniform Crime Report (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, September 2010), Table 29.
    http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_29.html
    Arrests for Drug Abuse Violations: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/arrests/index.html.
    "2008 Crime in the United States," FBI Uniform Crime Reports (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, September 2009), Table 29.
    http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_29.html
    Arrests for Drug Abuse Violations: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/arrests/index.html.
    "2007 Crime in the United States," (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, September 2008), Table 29.
    http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_29.html
    Arrests for Drug Abuse Violations: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/arrests/index.html
    "2006 Crime in the United States," (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, September 2007), Table 29.
    http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_29.html
    Arrests for Drug Abuse Violations: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/arrests/index.html
    "Crime in the United States 2005," FBI Uniform Crime Reports (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, September 2006), Table 29.
    http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_29.html
    Arrests for Drug Abuse Violations: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/arrests/index.html
    "Crime in the United States 2004," FBI Uniform Crime Reports (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2005) Table 29.
    http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/persons_arrested/table_29.html
    Arrests for Drug Abuse Violations: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/persons_arrested/index.html
    "Crime in the United States 2003," FBI Uniform Crime Reports (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2004), p. 269, Table 4.1 & and p. 270, Table 29.
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2003/03sec4.pdf
    "Crime in the United States 2002," FBI Uniform Crime Reports (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, 2003).
    http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/arrested/04-table29.html
    "Crime in the United States 2001," FBI Uniform Crime Reports (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2002), p. 232, Table 4.1 & and p. 233, Table 29. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2001/01sec4.pdf

  4. (Drug Arrest Trends in the US, 1990-2010) "There were 80% more arrests for drug possession or use in 2010 (1,336,530) than in 1990 (741,600). Between 1990 and its peak in 2006, the arrest rate for drug possession or use increased 75% (figure 37). The arrest rate declined between 2006 and 2010, ending in 2010 at 46% above its 1990 level and at a level similar to those seen between 1997 and 2002."

    Source: 
    Snyder, Howard N., "Arrests in the United States, 1990-2010" (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, Oct. 2012), NCJ239423, p. 12.
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aus9010.pdf

  5. (Drug Arrests in the US, 2010, by Age and Gender) "State and local law enforcement agencies made an estimated 1,336,500 arrests for drug possession or use in 2010. Females were 20% of these arrests. The median age in drug possession or use arrests was 26. Eleven percent of drug possession or use arrests in 2010 involved a juvenile, 18% involved persons age 40 or older, and 6% involved persons age 50 or older."

    Source: 
    Snyder, Howard N., "Arrests in the United States, 1990-2010" (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, Oct. 2012), NCJ239423, p. 12.
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aus9010.pdf

  6. (Average Police Time Taken Per Marijuana Arrest) "In our ongoing research about marijuana possession arrests in New York,1, we have found that a basic misdemeanor arrest for marijuana possession in New York City varied from a minimum of two or three hours for one officer, to four or five hours or even longer for multiple officers. During this time the officers returned to the police station with the handcuffed arrestees and booked them; they took photographs and fingerprints, gathered other information and wrote it up. They sent the personal data to be checked against the state's criminal databases and often waited to receive the arrestees' criminal records, if the database searches found any. Arresting officers regularly took suspects to the central booking jail, were interviewed by assistant district attorneys, and appeared in court.
    "For a very low and conservative estimate, we used two and a half hours as a minimum average amount of time one officer spends making a marijuana possession arrest. We multiplied 2.5 hours by the number of lowest-level marijuana possession arrests (charged under NYS Penal Law 221.10) for each year since 2002 when Mayor Bloomberg took office.
    "The front cover of this report shows a graph with the number of marijuana arrests for each year from 2002 through 2012. In those eleven years the NYPD made a total of 439,056 possession-only arrests. Multiplied by two and a half hours of police time per arrest that equals 1,097,640 hours - or approximately one million hours of police officer time to make 440,000 marijuana arrests. That is the equivalent of having 31 police officers working eight hours a day, 365 days a year, for 11 years, making only marijuana possession arrests."

    Source: 
    Harry Levine, Loren Siegel, and Gabriel Sayegh,"One Million Police Hours: Making 440,000 Marijuana Possession Arrests in New York City, 2002-2012," DrugPolicy Alliance and Marijuana Arrest Research Project, New York City, NY, March 2013, p. 2.
    http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/One_Million_Police_Hours.p...

  7. (Proportion of Reported Criminal Offenses Cleared by Arrest or Exception Means in the US, 2012)
    "• In the nation in 2012, 46.8 percent of violent crimes and 19.0 percent of property crimes were cleared by arrest or exceptional means.
    "• When considering clearances of violent crimes, 62.5 percent of murder offenses, 40.1 percent of forcible rape offenses, 28.1 percent of robbery offenses, and 55.8 percent of aggravated assault offenses were cleared.
    "• Among property crimes, 22.0 percent of larceny-theft offenses, 12.7 percent of burglary offenses, and 11.9 percent of motor vehicle theft offenses were cleared.
    "• In 2012, 20.4 percent of arson offenses were cleared by arrest or exceptional means.
    "• 30.1 percent of arson offenses cleared involved juveniles (persons under age 18); this was the highest percentage of all offense clearances involving only juveniles."

    Source: 
    "Crime in the United States 2012 - Clearances," FBI Uniform Crime Report (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, September 2013), p. 1.
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-...
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-...

  8. (Definition of 'Clearance') "In the UCR Program, a law enforcement agency reports that an offense is cleared by arrest, or solved for crime reporting purposes, when three specific conditions have been met. The three conditions are that at least one person has been:
    "Arrested.
    "Charged with the commission of the offense.
    "Turned over to the court for prosecution (whether following arrest, court summons, or police notice).
    "In its clearance calculations, the UCR Program counts the number of offenses that are cleared, not the number of persons arrested. The arrest of one person may clear several crimes, and the arrest of many persons may clear only one offense. In addition, some clearances that an agency records in a particular calendar year, such as 2011, may pertain to offenses that occurred in previous years."

    Source: 
    "Crime in the United States 2011 - Offenses Cleared," FBI Uniform Crime Report (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, October 2012), pp. 2-3.
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-...

  9. (Clearance Rates for Violent and Property Crime in the US, 1996-2012)

    Offenses Known to Police and Cleared by Arrest or Exceptional Means
    Violent Crimes Property Crimes
    Year Offenses Known
    To Police
    Percent Cleared Offenses Known
    To Police
    Percent Cleared
    2012 1,060,028 46.8% 8,015,405 19.0%
    2011 1,046,123 47.7% 8,107,267 18.6%
    2010 1,080,242 47.2% 8,064,964 18.3%
    2009 1,142,108 47.1% 8,229,516 18.6%
    2008 1,204,655 45.1% 8,628,536 17.4%
    2007 1,227,330 44.5% 8,716,315 16.5%
    2006 1,240,985 44.3% 8,851,465 15.8%
    2005 1,197,089 45.5% 8,935,714 16.3%
    2004 1,152,733 46.3% 8,925,398 16.5%
    2003 1,126,180 46.5% 8,728,536 16.4%
    2002 1,184,453 46.8% 8,937,268 16.5%
    2001 1,024,134 46.2% 7,860,198 16.2%
    2000 1,131,923 47.5% 8,235,013 16.7%
    1999 1,164,380 50.0% 8,495,347 17.5%
    1998 1,178,388 49.1% 8,405,350 17.4%
    1997 1,343,642 48.3% 9,584,841 17.9%
    1996 1,293,408 47.4% 9,125,896 18.1%
    Source: 
    "Crime in the United States 2012 - Clearances," FBI Uniform Crime Report (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, September 2013), p. 1.
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-...
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-...
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-...
    "Offenses Known to Police and Cleared by Arrest," Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics (Albany, NY: The University at Albany, 2013), Table 4.20.2011, last accessed Sept. 17, 2013.
    http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/ind/ARRESTS.Clearance_of_offenses_by_ar...
    http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t4202011.pdf

  10. (Arrests for Hard Drugs and Injection Drug Use Rates) "Changes in hard drug arrest rates did not predict changes in IDU population rates. These results are inconsistent with criminal deterrence theory and raise questions about whether arresting people for hard drug use contributes to public health."

    Source: 
    Samuel R. Friedman, PhD, et al., "Drug Arrests and Injection Drug Deterrence," American Journal of Public Health, February 2011, Vol. 101, No. 2, p. 347.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3020200/pdf/344.pdf

  11. (Impact of Arrests Rates on Injection Drug Use) "Although hard drug arrest rates were not associated with changes in the IDU rate, imprisonment might be. Arrest data may fail to capture incapacitation effects if arrests do not lead to incarceration or if sentences are brief.42 Furthermore, even data on time served may not reflect the perception of punitiveness among the population hypothesized to be deterred by incarceration.43 A study of incarceration and injection among 1603 IDUs, however, found that incarceration was negatively associated with injection cessation.7
    "Because high arrest rates move many active IDUs from the community into the penal system, the lack of a negative relationship between arrest rates and IDU prevalence raises the question of why removal of IDUs does not reduce their number. One possible reason is that incarcerated IDUs are replaced by new IDUs. This might result if hard drug arrests or the fear of such arrests promote transitions to injecting among noninjectors.23,25–27 Another possibility is that, in MSAs [Metropolitan Statistical Areas] where hard drug arrests have been decreasing over time, the removal of new arrestees is balanced by the return of previously arrested IDUs from jail or prison. More research is needed on this question.
    "Deterrence-based approaches to reducing drug use thus appear not to reduce IDU prevalence. They may harm public health: IDUs in MSAs with higher hard drug arrest rates have been found to have higher HIV prevalence.21 Furthermore, arrests for drug use disrupt the lives of drug users, their families, and their neighbors. High imprisonment rates for African American men have been suggested as a contributing factor to racial disparities in sexually transmitted infections in the United States.44,45 Alternative approaches such as harm reduction, which prevents HIV transmission and increases referrals to treatment, may be a better foundation for policy.46"

    Source: 
    Samuel R. Friedman, PhD, et al., "Drug Arrests and Injection Drug Deterrence," American Journal of Public Health, February 2011, Vol. 101, No. 2, p. 348.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3020200/pdf/344.pdf

  12. (Significant Number of US Citizens with Criminal Records) "According to a 2008 survey of states, there were 92.3 million people with criminal records on file with states, including those individuals fingerprinted for serious misdemeanors and felony arrests. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2008 (Oct. 2009), at Table 1. In some states, misdemeanor arrests for less serious crimes do not require fingerprinting, thus this figure is likely an undercount of people with criminal records. To account for individuals who may have records in multiple states and other factors, and to arrive at a conservative national estimate, the 92.3 million figure was reduced by 30 percent (64.6 million). Thus, as a percentage of the U.S. population over the age of 18 (232,458,335 in 2009 according to the U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, available at http://www.census.gov/popest/), an estimated 27.8 percent of the U.S. adult population has a criminal record on file with states. This estimate is consistent with a Department of Justice finding that about '30 percent of the Nation’s adult population' has a state rap sheet. U.S. Dept. of Justice Office of the Attorney General, The Attorney General’s Report on Criminal History Background Checks
    (June 2006), at 51. The rise in people with criminal records may significantly be attributed to the increased arrests associated with the 'War on Drugs.'"

    Source: 
    Rodriguez, Michelle Natividad and Emsellem, Maurice, "65 Million Need Not Apply: The Case for Reforming Criminal Background Checks for Employment," National Employment Law Project (New York, NY: March 2011), p. 27.
    http://www.nelp.org/page/-/SCLP/2011/65_Million_Need_Not_Apply.pdf?nocdn...

  13. (High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas) "There are currently 28 regional HIDTAs which include approximately 16 percent of all counties in the United States and 60 percent of the population. In addition, the Southwest Border HIDTA is divided into five regions (Arizona, California, New Mexico, South Texas, and West Texas), each of which operates in many respects as a separate HIDTA in a coordinated fashion with the four other regions. HIDTA-designated counties are located in 45 states, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia."

    Source: 
    High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program - Report To Congress" (Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy, June 2011), p. 5.
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/policy-and-research/...

  14. (Prohibition and Homicide Rates) "The data are quite consistent with the view that Prohibition at the state level inhibited alcohol consumption, and an attempt to explain correlated residuals by including omitted variables revealed that enforcement of Prohibitionist legislation had a significant inhibiting effect as well. Moreover, both hypotheses about the effects of alcohol and Prohibition are supported by the analysis. Despite the fact that alcohol consumption is a positive correlate of homicide (as expected), Prohibition and its enforcement increased the homicide rate."

    Source: 
    Jensen, Gary F., "Prohibition, Alcohol, and Murder: Untangling Countervailing Mechanisms," Homicide Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, February 2000), p. 31.
    http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=170654

  15. (Arrests by DEA, 2009, by Gender and Race/Ethnicity) "Most suspects arrested by the DEA for drug violations were male (86%). Three in 10 male suspects were arrested for cocaine powder, followed by marijuana (25%) and methamphetamine (15%) offenses. In 2009, females accounted for 14% of all DEA drug arrests and 20% of all methamphetamine arrests. About 2 in 10 (22%) females arrested by the DEA for drug violations were arrested for methamphetamine, followed by cocaine powder (21%) and marijuana (20%) offenses.
    "Half of all suspects arrested by the DEA were age 31 or younger. Hispanic suspects constituted 46% of arrestees, followed by white and black suspects (26% each). Hispanic suspects made up more than half of arrests for cocaine powder (55%) and marijuana (52%) offenses and nearly half of arrests involving opiates (49%). Three-quarters (75%) of crack cocaine suspects were black, and less than half of all methamphetamine suspects were white (41%)."

    Source: 
    Motivans, Mark, "Federal Justice Statistics, 2009" (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, Dec. 2011), NCJ234184, p. 3.
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fjs09.pdf

  16. (Arrests by DEA, 2009, by Substance) "The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) arrested 29,896 suspects for drug offenses in 2009, a nearly 10% increase from 27,235 arrests in 2008.
    "Suspects arrested for offenses involving cocaine powder and crack cocaine (11,361) accounted for 38% of all suspects arrested by the DEA in 2009 (table 2). Twenty-eight percent of suspects were arrested for offenses involving cocaine powder (8,491), and 10% were arrested for crack cocaine (2,870). Crack cocaine arrests declined by 12% from the 3,254 reported in 2008 (not shown in table). The remaining suspects were arrested for marijuana (7,294), methamphetamine (4,701), and for opiates (2,975)."

    Source: 
    Motivans, Mark, "Federal Justice Statistics, 2009" (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, Dec. 2011), NCJ234184, p. 3.
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fjs09.pdf

  17. (Officers Employed by DEA, FBI, and BOP) "In 2008, DOJ agencies employed about 40,000 (or 33%) of all full-time federal officers with arrest and firearm authority in the United States. The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) was the largest DOJ employer of federal officers and the second largest employer of federal officers overall. The BOP employed nearly 17,000 correctional officers and other staff who deal directly with inmates, such as correctional counselors and captains, to maintain the security of the federal prison system. This was about 1,600 (or 11%) more officers than in 2004. In September 2008, BOP facilities had about 165,000 inmates in custody, compared to about 153,000 inmates in 2004.
    "The second largest DOJ agency in 2008 was the FBI, which employed 12,760 full-time personnel with arrest and firearm authority. This was about 500 (or 4%) more officers than in 2004. Except for 230 FBI police officers, the FBI total consisted of special agents responsible for criminal investigation and enforcement.
    "In addition to the BOP and the FBI, three other major law enforcement agencies operated within DOJ during 2008: The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) (4,308 officers in 2008, down 2% from 2004), the U.S. Marshals Service (3,313 officers, up 2%), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) (2,541 officers, up 7%)."

    Source: 
    Reaves, Brian, "Federal Law Enforcement Officers, 2008" (Washington, DC: USDOJ, Bureau of Justice Statistics, June 2012), NCJ238250, p. 3.
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fleo08.pdf

  18. (Police "Stops" in NYC) "As the NYCLU previously disclosed, the NYPD conducted nearly 700,000 stops in 2011. The total of 685,724 stops marked an increase of 84,439 (14 percent) stops from 2010. During the 10 years of the Bloomberg administration, there have been 4,356,927 stops."

    Note: A "stop" is defined as "the practice of police officers stopping individuals on the street to question them."

    Source: 
    "Stop-and-Frisk 2011: NYCLU Briefing," New York Civil Liberties Union (New York, NY: American Civil Liberties Union of New York State, May 9, 2012), p. 3.
    http://www.nyclu.org/files/publications/NYCLU_2011_Stop-and-Frisk_Report...

  19. (NY Stop-and-Frisk) "In 70 out of 76 precincts, black and Latino New Yorkers accounted for more than 50 percent of stops, and in 33 precincts they accounted for more than 90 percent of stops. In the 10 precincts with the lowest black and Latino populations (such as the 6th Precinct in Greenwich Village), blacks and Latinos accounted for more than 70 percent of stops in six of those precincts."

    Source: 
    "Stop-and-Frisk 2011: NYCLU Briefing," New York Civil Liberties Union (New York, NY: American Civil Liberties Union of New York State, May 9, 2012), p. 2.
    http://www.nyclu.org/files/publications/NYCLU_2011_Stop-and-Frisk_Report...

  20. (Drug Tunnels) "Criminal organizations have demonstrated enduring and ever-evolving capabilities to creatively construct and use underground passageways to gain access through the border to transport narcotics, people, and other illicit contraband into the continental United States. Since May 1990, 101 crossborder tunnels have been discovered by law enforcement agencies. All but one have originated in Mexico and exited in either California or Arizona. There were 24 tunnels discovered in Calendar Year 2008 alone. One tunnel -- the longest crossborder tunnel discovered in United States history -- had ventilation, drainage, and lighting systems, as well as a cement floor and a pulley system. The entrance to the tunnel in Mexico was 85 feet below the surface, and the tunnel crossed the U.S. border at approximately 40-45 feet below the surface, with the entrance on the U.S. side approximately nine feet below the surface. Law enforcement authorities seized over two tons of marijuana in the tunnel, which was attributed to a well-known Mexican drug trafficking organization."

    Source: 
    Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy, "National Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy," (Washington, DC: June 2009), p. 45.
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/policy-and-research/...

  21. (NY Stop-and-Frisk of Young Black and Latino Men) "Young black and Latino men were the targets of a hugely disproportionate number of stops. Though they account for only 4.7 percent of the city’s population, black and Latino males between the ages of 14 and 24 accounted for 41.6 percent of stops in 2011. The number of stops of young black men exceeded the entire city population of young black men (168,126 as compared to 158,406). Ninety percent of young black and Latino men stopped were innocent."

    Source: 
    "Stop-and-Frisk 2011: NYCLU Briefing," New York Civil Liberties Union (New York, NY: American Civil Liberties Union of New York State, May 9, 2012), p. 2.
    http://www.nyclu.org/files/publications/NYCLU_2011_Stop-and-Frisk_Report...

  22. (NY Stop-and-Frisk of Innocent People) "Of the 685,724 stops in 2011, 605,328 were of people who had engaged in no unlawful behavior as evidenced by the fact they were not issued a summons nor arrested. Of those, 310,390 were black (53.1 percent), 197,251 Latino (33.7 percent), and 53,726 white (9.2 percent). Young black and Latino males bore the brunt of these stops, accounting for 242,317 stops of innocent people (42.9 percent)."

    Source: 
    "Stop-and-Frisk 2011: NYCLU Briefing," New York Civil Liberties Union (New York, NY: American Civil Liberties Union of New York State, May 9, 2012), p. 15.
    http://www.nyclu.org/files/publications/NYCLU_2011_Stop-and-Frisk_Report...

  23. (Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations) "Today Mexico is a major producer and supplier to the U.S. market of heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana and the major transit country for cocaine sold in the United States. According to the Department of State’s 2009 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, as much as 90% of the cocaine entering the United States now transits through Mexico. A small number of Mexican DTOs control the most significant drug distribution operations along the Southwest border. The criminal activities of these Mexican DTOs reach well beyond the towns and cities of the border, extending along drug trafficking routes into cities across the United States. The Mexican DTOs have exhibited many characteristics of organized crime such as being organized in distinct cells and controlling subordinate cells that operate throughout the United States.1"

    Source: 
    Beittel, June S., "Mexico's Drug-Related Violence," Congressional Research Service (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, May 27, 2009), p. 7.
    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40582.pdf
    citing: United States Department of State, Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, "International Narcotics Control Strategy Report: Volume I, Drug and Chemical Control," (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State: March 2009), p. 414.
    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/120054.pdf
    and Cook, Colleen W., "Mexico's Drug Cartels," Congressional Research Service (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, October 16, 2007), p. 5.
    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34215.pdf

  24. (Violent Crime and Substance Use) "Contrary to conventional wisdom and popular myth, alcohol is more tightly linked with more violent crimes than crack, cocaine, heroin or any other illegal drug. In state prisons, 21 percent of inmates in prison for violent crimes were under the influence of alcohol--and no other substance--when they committed their crime; in contrast, at the time of their crimes, only three percent of violent offenders were under the influence of cocaine or crack alone, only one percent under the influence of heroin alone."

    Source: 
    Califano, Joseph, Behind Bars: Substance Abuse and America's Prison Population, Forward by Joseph Califano, The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (1998).
    http://www.casacolumbia.org/articlefiles/379-Behind%20Bars.pdf

  25. (Drivers License Revocation) "In the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of 1992,100 Congress required the withholding of ten percent of certain federal highway funds unless a state either: 1) enacts and enforces a law revoking or suspending for at least six months the driver's license of an individual who is convicted of any drug offense; or 2) the governor submits written certification to the Secretary of the Department of Transportation that he or she opposes the revocation/suspension, and that the state legislature has adopted a resolution expressing its opposition to this law.l01 This law defines "drug offense" as any criminal offense involving the possession, distribution, manufacture, cultivation, sale, transfer, or the attempt or conspiracy to possess, distribute, manufacture, cultivate, sell, or transfer any substance (the possession of which is prohibited by the Controlled Substances Act) or the operation of a motor vehicle under the influence of such a substance.102
    "Thus, unless states formally express their opposition to the federal law, they must suspend or revoke for at least six months the driver's license of anyone convicted of a drug offense.103 If they do express their opposition, they are free to limit suspension or revocation only to offenses involving driving or other more limited categories of offenses. Twenty-three states automatically suspend or revoke drivers' licenses for conviction of some or all drug offenses, in addition to driving-related offenses;104 the other twenty-seven states do not."

    Source: 
    Mukamal, Debbie A. and Samuels, Paul N., "Statutory Limitations on Civil Rights of People with Criminal Records." Fordham Urban Law Journal (New York, NY: Fordham University, 2002) Volume 30, Issue 5, p. 1515.
    http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1873&context=ul...

  26. (Weed and Seed) "The Weed and Seed (W&S) strategy was launched more than 18 years ago by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) as a community-based, comprehensive, multiagency approach to law enforcement, crime prevention, and community revitalization in high-crime neighborhoods. Since its start in three demonstration sites, W&S initiatives have been established in hundreds of neighborhoods nationwide. In early 2010, 256 sites were active in 46 states and 2 territories. Beginning around 2007, W&S funding has been limited to 5 years for a given site, with a maximum of $1 million over that time."

    Source: 
    Trudeau, James; Barrick, Kelle; Williams, Jason, "Independent Evaluation of the National Weed and Seed Strategy," Office of Justice Programs, Community Capacity Development Office (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, September 2010), p. 2.
    http://www.jrsa.org/projects/WnS_Final_Evaluation_Report.pdf

  27. (Impact of Medical Marijuana Legalization (MML) on Crime Rates in States That Have Legalized Medical Cannabis) "The central finding gleaned from the present study was that MML is not predictive of higher crime rates and may be related to reductions in rates of homicide and assault. Interestingly, robbery and burglary rates were unaffected by medicinal marijuana legislation, which runs counter to the claim that dispensaries and grow houses lead to an increase in victimization due to the opportunity structures linked to the amount of drugs and cash that are present. Although, this is in line with prior research suggesting that medical marijuana dispensaries may actually reduce crime in the immediate vicinity [8]."

    Source: 
    Robert G. Morris, Michael TenEyck, JC Barnes, and Tomislav V. Kovandzic, "The Effect of Medical Marijuana Laws On Crime: Evidence From State Panel Data, 1990-2006," PLoS ONE 9(3): e92816. March 2014. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092816
    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.00928...

  28. (Effect of Medical Marijuana Legalization On Crime Rates) "In sum, these findings run counter to arguments suggesting the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes poses a danger to public health in terms of exposure to violent crime and property crimes. To be sure, medical marijuana laws were not found to have a crime exacerbating effect on any of the seven crime types. On the contrary, our findings indicated that MML precedes a reduction in homicide and assault. While it is important to remain cautious when interpreting these findings as evidence that MML reduces crime, these results do fall in line with recent evidence [29] and they conform to the longstanding notion that marijuana legalization may lead to a reduction in alcohol use due to individuals substituting marijuana for alcohol [see generally 29, 30]. Given the relationship between alcohol and violent crime [31], it may turn out that substituting marijuana for alcohol leads to minor reductions in violent crimes that can be detected at the state level. That said, it also remains possible that these associations are statistical artifacts (recall that only the homicide effect holds up when a Bonferroni correction is made)."

    Source: 
    Robert G. Morris, Michael TenEyck, JC Barnes, and Tomislav V. Kovandzic, "The Effect of Medical Marijuana Laws On Crime: Evidence From State Panel Data, 1990-2006," PLoS ONE 9(3): e92816. March 2014. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092816
    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.00928...

  29. (Effect Of Medical Marijuana Legalization On Crime Rates And Limitations Of Data) "Given that the current results failed to uncover a crime exacerbating effect attributable to MML, it is important to examine the findings with a critical eye. While we report no positive association between MML and any crime type, this does not prove MML has no effect on crime (or even that it reduces crime). It may be the case that an omitted variable, or set of variables, has confounded the associations and masked the true positive effect of MML on crime. If this were the case, such a variable would need to be something that was restricted to the states that have passed MML, it would need to have emerged in close temporal proximity to the passage of MML in all of those states (all of which had different dates of passage for the marijuana law), and it would need to be something that decreased crime to such an extent that it ‘‘masked’’ the true positive effect of MML (i.e., it must be something that has an opposite sign effect between MML [e.g., a positive correlation] and crime [e.g., a negative correlation]). Perhaps the more likely explanation of the current findings is that MML laws reflect behaviors and attitudes that have been established in the local communities. If these attitudes and behaviors reflect a more tolerant approach to one another’s personal rights, we are unlikely to expect an increase in crime and might even anticipate a slight reduction in personal crimes.
    "Moreover, the present findings should also be taken in context with the nature of the data at hand. They are based on official arrest records (UCR), which do not account for crimes not reported to the police and do not account for all charges that may underlie an arrest. In any case, this longitudinal assessment of medical marijuana laws on state crime rates suggests that these laws do not appear to have any negative (i.e., crime exacerbating) impact on officially reported criminality during the years in which the laws are in effect, at least when it comes to the types of offending explored here. It is also important to keep in mind that the UCR data used here did not account for juvenile offending, which may or may not be empirically tethered to MML in some form or another; an assessment of which is beyond the scope of this study."

    Source: 
    Robert G. Morris, Michael TenEyck, JC Barnes, and Tomislav V. Kovandzic, "The Effect of Medical Marijuana Laws On Crime: Evidence From State Panel Data, 1990-2006," PLoS ONE 9(3): e92816. March 2014. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092816
    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.00928...

  30. (Treatment and Crime Rates) "Increases in admissions to substance abuse treatment are associated with reductions in crime rates. Admissions to drug treatment increased 37.4 percent and federal spending on drug treatment increased 14.6 percent from 1995 to 2005. During the same period, violent crime fell 31.5 percent. Maryland experienced decreases in crime when jurisdictions increased the number of people sent to drug treatment."

    Source: 
    Justice Policy Institute, "Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety," (Washington, DC: January 2008), p. 1.
    http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08_01_REP_DrugTx_AC-PS.pdf

  31. (Sheriff's Offices with Drug Enforcement Units) "Nine in 10 sheriffs' offices regularly performed drug enforcement functions (table 29). Sheriffs' offices with drug enforcement responsibilities employed 90% of all local police officers.
    "Thirty-six percent of sheriffs’ offices operated a special unit for drug enforcement with one or more officers assigned full-time (table 30). A majority of sheriffs' offices serving a population of 250,000 or more residents had a fulltime drug enforcement unit. There were an estimated 4,031 officers assigned full time to drug enforcement units nationwide. The average number of officers assigned ranged from 27 in jurisdictions with 1 million or more residents to 2 in those with fewer than 50,000 residents."

    Source: 
    Hickman, Matthew J.. and Reaves, Brian A., "Sheriffs' Offices 2003" (Washington, DC: USDOJ, Bureau of Justice Statistics, May 2006), NCJ 211361. p. 15.
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/so03.pdf

  32. (Sheriffs' Officers Assigned to Drug Task Forces) "In 2003 an estimated 47% of sheriffs' offices had one or more officers assigned full time to a multi-agency drug enforcement task force (table 31), including 89% of sheriffs' offices serving 1 million or more residents. About 71% of all officers worked for a department that assigned officers to a drug task force.
    "Nationwide, an estimated 3,477 officers were assigned full time to a drug task force. The average number assigned full time ranged from 9 in sheriffs' offices serving a population of 1 million or more to 1 in those serving fewer than 10,000 residents."

    Source: 
    Hickman, Matthew J. and Reaves, Brian A., "Sheriffs' Offices 2003" (Washington, DC: USDOJ, Bureau of Justice Statistics, May 2006), NCJ 211361.
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/so03.pdf

  33. (HIDTA Accomplishments, 2010) "HIDTA initiatives identified 8,693 DTOs operating in their areas of responsibility, of which 2,968 were disrupted or dismantled in FY 2010. Nearly two‐thirds (64%) of these disrupted and dismantled DTOs were identified as part of a multi‐state or international operation. In the process, HIDTA initiatives removed significant quantities of drugs from the market (detailed below) and seized $774 million in cash and $161 million in non‐cash assets from drug traffickers. Moreover, 44 percent of HIDTAs achieved an average cost per DTO disrupted or dismantled below program average. In 2010, HIDTA task forces seized 1.2 million kg of marijuana; 48.3 thousand kg of cocaine powder; 5.1 thousand kg of methamphetamine; 4.4 thousand kg of Ice; 7.3 thousand kg of heroin; and 7.7 million outdoor marijuana plants plus 241.9 thousand indoor marijuana plants."

    Source: 
    "FY 2013 Budget and Performance Summary," Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy, April 2012, p. 218.
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/fy2013_drug_control_...

  34. (Substance Use and Nonfatal Violent Victimization) "Juveniles using drugs or alcohol committed 1 in 10 of the nonfatal violent victimizations against older teens. This was 2-1/2 times higher than the percentage of victimizations against younger teens perceived to be committed by a juvenile who was using drugs or alcohol.
    "Younger teens were more likely than older teens to report that their juvenile offender was not using drugs or alcohol. In about 4 in 10 victimizations against younger and older teens committed by juveniles, the victim could not ascertain whether or not the offender was using drugs or alcohol."

    Source: 
    Baum, Katrina, PhD, "Juvenile Victimization and Offending, 1993-2003" (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Aug. 2005), p. 8.
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/jvo03.pdf

  35. (Failure of Law Enforcement Interventions) "Based on the available English language scientific evidence, the results of this systematic review suggest that an increase in drug law enforcement interventions to disrupt drug markets is unlikely to reduce drug market violence. Instead, from an evidence-based public policy perspective and based on several decades of available data, the existing scientific evidence suggests drug law enforcement contributes to gun violence and high homicide rates and that increasingly sophisticated methods of disrupting organizations involved in drug distribution could paradoxically increase violence. In this context, and since drug prohibition has not achieved its stated goals of reducing drug supply, alternative regulatory models for drug control will be required if drug market violence is to be substantially reduced."

    Source: 
    Werb, Dan; Rowell, Greg; Guyatt, Gordond; Kerr, Thomas; Montaner, Julioa; Wood, Evan, "Effect of drug law enforcement on drug market violence: A systemic review," International Journal of Drug Policy (London, United Kingdom: International Harm Reduction Association: March 2011) Vol. 22, Issue 2, p. 92.
    http://www.ihra.net/files/2011/03/25/ICSDP_Violence_and_Enforcement_Repo...

  36. (Diversion and Fraud) "According to law enforcement reporting, some individuals and criminal groups divert CPDs [controlled prescription drugs] through doctor-shopping and use insurance fraud to fund their schemes. In fact, Aetna, Inc. reports that nearly half of its 1,065 member fraud cases in 2006 (the latest year for which data are available) involved prescription benefits, and most were related to doctor-shopping, according to the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud (CAIF). CAIF further reports that diversion of CPDs collectively costs insurance companies up to $72.5 billion annually, nearly two-thirds of which is paid by public insurers. Individual insurance plans lose an estimated $9 million to $850 million annually, depending on each plan’s size; much of that cost is passed on to consumers through higher annual premiums."

    Source: 
    National Drug Intelligence Center, Drug Enforcement Administration, "National Prescription Drug Threat Assessment," (Washington DC, April 2009), p. 20.
    http://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs33/33775/33775p.pdf

  37. Law and Policy

    (Federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970) "Enacted in 1970, the CSA [Controlled Substances Act] establishes a statutory framework through which the federal government regulates the lawful production, possession, and distribution of controlled substances.7 The CSA places various plants, drugs, and chemicals (such as narcotics, stimulants, depressants, hallucinogens, and anabolic steroids) into one of five schedules based on the substance’s medical use, potential for abuse, and safety or dependence liability.8 Further, the act requires persons who handle controlled substances or listed chemicals (such as drug manufacturers, wholesale distributors, doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, and scientific researchers) to register with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in DOJ, which administers and enforces the CSA.9 Registrants must maintain detailed records of their respective controlled substance inventories, as well as establish adequate security controls to minimize theft and diversion.10"

    Source: 
    Garvey, Todd, "Medical Marijuana: The Supremacy Clause, Federalism, and the Interplay Between State and Federal Laws," Congressional Research Service (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, March 6, 2012), p. 2.
    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42398.pdf

  38. Sec. 844. Penalties for simple possession [of Controlled Substances in the United States]

    STATUTE
    (a) Unlawful acts; penalties
    It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled substance unless such substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a practitioner, while cting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter."
    "Any person who violates this subsection may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 1 year ....."
    "if he commits such offense after a prior conviction under this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter, or a prior conviction for any drug, narcotic, or chemical offense chargeable under the law of any State, has become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than 15 days but not more than 2 years, and shall be fined a minimum of $2,500 ...."
    "if he commits such offense after two or more prior convictions under this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter, or two or more prior convictions for any drug, narcotic, or chemical offense chargeable under the law of any State, or a combination of two or more such offenses have become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than 90 days but not more than 3 years, and shall be fined a minimum of $5,000."

    Source: 
    U.S. Code. Title 21, Chapter 13 -- Drug Abuse Prevention and Control -- Section 844, Penalties for Simple Possession, pp. 416-417.
    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc21.wais&start=2939781&SIZE=9863&TYPE=PDF
    http://mapinc.org/url/0npxgLDk

  39. (Crack/Powder Cocaine Sentencing Disparity)
    On August 3, 2010, President Barack Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. Per the Sentencing Project, "the minimum quantity of crack cocaine that triggers a 5-year mandatory minimum from 5 grams to 28 grams, and from 50 grams to 280 grams to trigger a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence. The amount of powder cocaine required to trigger the 5 and 10-year mandatory minimums remains the same, at 500 grams and 5 kilograms, respectively. The legislation also eliminates the mandatory minimum for simple possession of crack cocaine. The quantity disparity between crack and powder cocaine has moved from 100 to 1 to 18 to 1."

    Source: 
    The Sentencing Project, "Fair Sentencing Act Signed by President Obama," August 3, 2010, last accessed Dec. 13, 2012.
    http://www.sentencingproject.org/detail/news.cfm?news_id=984&id=164

  40. (Origin of the Controlled Substances Act) "With increasing use of marijuana and other street drugs during the 1960s, notably by college and high school students, federal drug-control laws came under scrutiny. In July 1969, President Nixon asked Congress to enact legislation to combat rising levels of drug use. Hearings were held, different proposals were considered, and House and Senate conferees filed a conference report in October 1970. The report was quickly adopted by voice vote in both chambers and was signed into law as the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. ... Included in the new law was the Controlled Substances Act."

    Source: 
    Eddy, Mark, "Medical Marijuana: Review and Analysis of Federal and State Policies," Congressional Research Service (Washington, DC: March 31, 2009), p. 3.
    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33211.pdf

  41. (Criteria for Accepted Medical Use) "Although the petition for review was denied, it led to a revised formulation by the DEA for determining whether a drug has a 'currently accepted medical use.' The 5-part test for fulfilling the accepted medical use criteria of Schedule II is now comprised of the following:
    "• the drug’s chemistry must be known and reproducible;
    "• there must be adequate safety studies;
    "• there must be adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy;
    "• the drug must be accepted by qualified experts; and
    "• the scientific evidence must be widely available.
    "A drug must meet all 5 criteria to be considered for rescheduling by the DEA.
    "Even if marijuana were rescheduled under current law it could not be marketed or medically available for general prescription use unless it was reviewed and approved by FDA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (see below). Conceivably, a physician may be able to write a prescription for an individual patient with the cooperation of a compounding pharmacist with a schedule II license. However, the FDA treats compounded products as 'new drugs' subject to all the requirements of the FFDCA if pharmacists attempt to compound large quantities of medication."

    Source: 
    American Medical Association, Council on Science and Public Health, "Report 3 of the Council on Science and Public Health: Use of Cannabis for Medicinal Purposes" (December 2009) p. 8.
    http://www.ama-assn.org//resources/doc/csaph/i09csaph3ft.pdf

  42. (Placement of Drugs in the Controlled Substances Act) "As this paper demonstrates, the pharmacological effect of a drug does not necessarily determine how a drug will be governed. Rather, it is the way a drug is framed that determines how the drug will be popularly understood and ultimately regulated. According to the Regulatory Regime / Norms model, the meaning of any drug (how it is perceived or understood) is initially ambiguous and indeterminate. As a result, the project of getting a drug into a particular regulatory regime is about allocating specific meaning and significance to the drug in order to prompt individuals to think and feel about the drug in a way that allows for regime placement. This is accomplished by framing a drug to match the norms of a particular regime. Thus, the critical work at the level of regulation is in the framing."
    "Once a group has persuasively framed a drug in a way that resonates with the norms of its regime of choice, then the drug may be placed in that regime, regardless of whether the designation decision is supported by scientific or medical evidence. As we have seen with cocaine, marijuana and anabolic steroids, however, if a drug in the criminal regulatory regime is closely associated with socially maligned groups or racial minorities, then it is substantially more difficult for the drug to eventually migrate out of the regime."

    Source: 
    Paul-Emile, Kimani, "Making Sense of Drug Regulation: A Theory of Law for Drug Control Policy," Fordham University School of Law, Cornell Journal of Law and Policy (December 2009), p. 52.
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1523401

  43. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970:

    "(a) Establishment There are established five schedules of controlled substances, to be known as schedules I, II, III, IV, and V ...."

    "(b).... The findings required for each of the schedules are as follows:

    "(1) Schedule I. - (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. (B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

    "(2) Schedule II. - (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions. (C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

    "(3) Schedule III. - (A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II. (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychologicaldependence.

    "(4) Schedule IV. - (A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III. (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.

    "(5) Schedule V. - (A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV. (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV."

    Source: 
    U.S. Code. Title 21, Chapter 13 -- Drug Abuse Prevention and Control -- Section 812, Schedules of Controlled Substances, p. 384.
    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc21.wais&start=2717826&SIZE=24600&TYPE=PDF
    http://mapinc.org/url/1NCZaa7Q

  44. (Police "Stops" Defined) "'Stops' refers to the practice of police officers stopping individuals on the street to question them. In general, police may do this to anyone at any time. But unless and until the police officer tells an individual he or she may not leave, a person stopped is free not to answer questions and to leave. As Supreme Court Justice Harlan said in his opinion in Terry [v. Ohio], ordinarily and unless there are specific facts sufficient to justify the officer’s suspicion that a crime is, has been or may about to be committed, the person stopped has a right to ignore the officer’s questions and walk away. But if the individual may not leave, this is called, as Justice Harlan put it, a 'forcible stop.'
    "This is why, when stopped, it is always advisable to ask the police officer politely whether you are free to leave or not. If you are restrained from leaving, you should not resist. But at some point, if the stop is more than brief, you should ask whether you are being arrested. This is because more evidence is required to arrest someone than to stop them for questioning."

    Source: 
    Glasser, Ira, "Stop, Question and Frisk: What the Law Says About Your Rights," Drug Policy Alliance (New York, NY: May 2011), p. 4.
    http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Stop%20and%20Frisk%20Issue...

  45. (Police "Frisks" Defined) "A pat-down frisk is a limited search subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. It involves a police officer patting down an individual’s outer clothing, and only his outer clothing, if and only if, pursuant to a lawful forcible stop, the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the individual stopped is armed and dangerous. This is the only legal justification for a pat-down frisk.
    "Reasonable suspicion of any other crime is enough to stop and question an individual, but it is not enough to frisk him. For that, reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous is required."

    Source: 
    Glasser, Ira, "Stop, Question and Frisk: What the Law Says About Your Rights," Drug Policy Alliance (New York, NY: May 2011), p. 4.
    http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Stop%20and%20Frisk%20Issue...

  46. (Federal Drug Enforcement) "Drug-related activities in the United States span a number of agencies. In addition to the DoD [Department of Defense] activities focused on drug trafficking discussed previously, a range of programs involving intelligence collection, analysis, and sharing are in place at a number of levels. The central actor in counternarcotics and, therefore, domestic intelligence activities in this area is the DEA [Drug Enforcement Administration]. The agency’s Intelligence Division manages a number of offices and programs that interface both with other agencies in the intelligence community (e.g., the division’s National Security Intelligence Section) and operations to support state and local law enforcement activities (such as Operation Pipeline, which provides training, communication, and analytic support to local law enforcement targeting private motor vehicles involved in drug trafficking, and Operation Convoy, its commercial vehicle counterpart). The Intelligence Division manages information fusion centers. For example, the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) is the major hub for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating drug related intelligence for all levels of law enforcement and government. It covers drug, alien, and weapon smuggling, as well as terrorism-related smuggling. To support state and local operations, the DEA has organized Mobile Enforcement Teams (METs) to assist state and local law enforcement facing particularly difficult drug-enforcement challenges. When requested by state and local law enforcement, the DEA will send a team to assist in investigation, intelligence collection and analysis, arrests, and prosecution."

    Source: 
    Jackson, Brian A.; Noricks, Darcy; and Goldsmith, Benjamin W., "Current Domestic Intelligence Efforts in the United States," RAND Corporation (Santa Monica, CA: 2009), pp. 65-66.
    http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG804.pdf

  47. (HIDTA) "The HIDTA [High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area] program, originally authorized by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-690),155 provides assistance to federal, state, and local law enforcement operating in areas deemed as the most-impacted by drug trafficking. Each HIDTA is governed by a separate executive board comprised of about eight federal agencies and eight state or local agencies. The program’s main goals are to
    "• assess regional drug threats;
    "• develop strategies focusing efforts on combating drug trafficking threats;
    "• create and fund initiatives to improve these strategies;
    "• facilitate coordination between federal, state, and local efforts; and
    "• produce efficient drug control efforts to reduce/eliminate the impact of drug trafficking.156

    "The Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) has the authority to designate areas within the United States and its territories that are centers of illegal drug production, manufacturing, importation, or distribution as HIDTAs—of which there are currently 28."

    Source: 
    Finklea, Kristin M., "The Interplay of Borders, Turf, Cyberspace, and Jurisdiction: Issues Confronting U.S. Law Enforcement," Congressional Research Service (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, July 19, 2011), p. 30.
    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41927.pdf

  48. (Temporary Scheduling Authority) "Because policymakers were concerned about the effects of pharmaceutically created and other modified drugs, Congress gave the Attorney General the authority to temporarily place a substance onto Schedule I of the CSA to 'avoid imminent hazards to public safety.13 When determining whether there is an imminent hazard, the Attorney General (through the DEA) must consider the drug’s history and current pattern of abuse; scope, duration, and significance of abuse; and risk to public health. Once scheduled through this temporary scheduling process, a substance may remain on Schedule I for one year. The Attorney General then has the authority to keep the substance on Schedule I for an additional six months before it must be removed or permanently scheduled."

    Source: 
    Sacco, Lisa N. and Finklea, Kristin M., "Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for Congress, Congressional Research Service (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, October 28, 2011), p. 3.
    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42066.pdf

  49. "Initial schedules of controlled substances Schedules I, II, III, IV, and V shall, unless and until amended (FOOTNOTE 1) pursuant to section 811 of this title, consist of the following drugs or other substances:"

    SCHEDULE I
    (b): (10) Heroin
    (c): (2) 5-methoxy-3,4-methylenedioxy amphetamine [MDMA]. (8) Ibogaine. (9) Lysergic acid diethylamide [LSD] . (10) Marihuana [marijuana, cannabis]. (11) Mescaline. (12) Peyote. (15) Psilocybin. (16) Psilocyn. (17) Tetrahydrocannabinols.
    Sec. 3: Gamma hydroxybutyric acid (GHB)

    SCHEDULE II
    (a): (1) Opium and opiate, and any salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium or opiate. (3) Opium poppy and poppy straw. (4) coca (FOOTNOTE 3) leaves, except coca leaves and extracts of coca leaves from which cocaine, ecgonine, and derivatives of ecgonine or their salts have been removed; cocaine, its salts, optical and geometric isomers, and salts of isomers ...
    (b:): (6) Fentanyl. (4) Dihydrocodeine. (11) Methadone.

    SCHEDULE III
    (a): (1) Amphetamine
    (e): Anabolic steroids

    SCHEDULE IV
    (1) Barbital. (7) Meprobamate [Milltown].

    SCHEDULE V
    (1) Not more than 200 milligrams of codeine per 100 milliliters or per 100 grams.
    (5) Not more than 100 milligrams of opium per 100 milliliters or per 100 grams.

    Source: 
    U.S. Code. Title 21, Chapter 13 -- Drug Abuse Prevention and Control -- Section 844, Penalties for Simple Possession, pp. 385-387.
    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc21.wais&start=2717826&SIZE=24600&TYPE=PDF
    http://mapinc.org/url/1NCZaa7Q
    http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/orangebook/e_cs_sched.pdf

  50. (Other Strategies) "Some experts propose easing certain laws to allow the government to concentrate its limited resources on the most pressing criminal activities. For example, some advocate decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana. Others, concerned that the government may be overwhelmed, have proposed legalizing some counterfeit products and easing certain piracy restrictions. Intellectual property-related legal changes would probably require contentious negotiations with affected U.S. industries. Approaches such as these can be controversial and politically difficult; critics believe they risk sending society an inappropriate message. But some argue that similar strategies are already employed. The United States, for example, has taken steps to regularize the status of certain illegal immigrants. Many foreign countries have reduced legal penalties for marijuana possession. Some experts propose more funding for studies on various policies’ economic and social effects."

    Source: 
    Wagley, John R., "Transnational Organized Crime: Principal Threats and U.S. Responses," Congressional Research Service (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, March 20, 2006), p. CRS 14.
    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33335.pdf

  51. Sociopolitical and Clinical Research

    (Violence and Decriminalization) "Generalizing from the findings on Prohibition, we can hypothesize that decriminalization would increase the use of the previously criminalized drug, but would decrease violence associated with attempts to control illicit markets and as resolutions to disputes between buyers and sellers. Moreover, because the perception of violence associated with the drug market can lead people who are not directly involved to be prepared for violent self-defense, there could be additional reductions in peripheral settings when disputes arise (see Blumstein & Cork, 1997; Sheley & Wright, 1996)."

    Source: 
    Jensen, Gary F., "Prohibition, Alcohol, and Murder: Untangling Countervailing Mechanisms," Homicide Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, February 2000), pp. 33-4.
    http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=180958

  52. (Effect of Police Crackdowns) The Canadian Medical Association Journal published research on the impact of a police crackdown on a public illicit drug market in the Downtown Eastside (DTES) section of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. The researchers found that:
    "Our results probably explain reports of increased injection drug use, drug-related crime and other public-order concerns in neighbourhoods where activities related to illicit drug use and the sex trade emerged or intensified in the wake of the crackdown. Such displacement has profound public-health implications if it "normalizes" injection drug use among previously unexposed at-risk youth. Furthermore, since difficulty in obtaining syringes has been shown to be a significant factor in promoting syringe sharing among IDUs in Vancouver, displacement away from sources of sterile syringes may increase the rates of bloodborne diseases. Escalated police presence may also explain the observed reduction in willingness to use a safer injection facility.33 It is unlikely that the lack of benefit of the crackdown was due to insufficient police resources. Larger crackdowns in the United States, which often involved helicopters to supplement foot and car patrols, have not had measurable benefits and have instead been associated with substantial health and social harms."

    Source: 
    Wood, Evan, Patricia M. Spittal, Will Small, Thomas Kerr, Kathy Li, Robert S. Hogg, Mark W. Tyndall, Julio S.G. Montaner, Martin T. Schechter, "Displacement of Canada's Largest Public Illicit Drug Market In Response To A Police Crackdown," Canadian Medical Association Journal, May 11, 2004: 170(10), pp. 1554-1555.
    http://www.cmaj.ca/content/170/10/1551.full.pdf+html

  53. (Effect of Police Crackdowns) The Canadian Medical Association Journal published research on the impact of a police crackdown on a public illicit drug market in the Downtown Eastside (DTES) section of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. The researchers found that:

    "We detected no reduction in druguse frequency or drug price in response to a large-scale police crackdown on drug users in Vancouver's DTES. The evidence that drugs became more difficult to obtain was consistent with reports of displacement of drug dealers and was supported by the significantly higher rates of reporting that police presence had affected where drugs were used, including changes in neighbourhood and increases in use in public places. These observations were validated by examination of needle-exchange statistics.

    "Our findings are consistent with those showing that demand for illicit drugs enables the illicit drug market to adapt to and overcome enforcement-related constraints. Although evidence suggested that police presence made it more difficult to obtain drugs, this appeared to be explained by displacement of drug dealers."

    Source: 
    Wood, Evan, Patricia M. Spittal, Will Small, Thomas Kerr, Kathy Li, Robert S. Hogg, Mark W. Tyndall, Julio S.G. Montaner, Martin T. Schechter, "Displacement of Canada's Largest Public Illicit Drug Market In Response To A Police Crackdown," Canadian Medical Association Journal, May 11, 2004: 170(10), p. 1554.
    http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/170/10/1551

  54. (Law Enforcement Targeting of Racial/Ethnic Minorities) "Police departments deploy most patrol and narcotics police to certain neighborhoods, usually designated 'high crime.' These are disproportionately low-income, and disproportionately African American and Latino. It is in these neighborhoods where the police make most patrols, and where they stop and search the most vehicles and individuals, looking for 'contraband' of any type in order to make an arrest. The item that people in any neighborhood are most likely to possess, which can get them arrested, is a small amount of marijuana. In short, the arrests are ethnically- and racially-biased mainly because the police are systematically 'fishing' for arrests in only some neighborhoods, and methodically searching only some 'fish.'6 This produces what has been termed 'racism without racists.'"

    Source: 
    Harry G. Levine, Jon B. Gettman, Loren Siegel. "Arresting Blacks for Marijuana in California: Possession Arrests, 2006-08.” Drug Policy Alliance, LA: October 2010, p. 13.
    http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/ArrestingBlacks.pdf

  55. (Drugs and Gang Homicides) "The finding that gang homicides commonly were not precipitated by drug trade/use or other crimes in progress also is similar to previous research; however, this finding challenges public perceptions on gang homicides (5). The public often has viewed gangs, drug trade/use, crime, and homicides as interconnected factors; however, studies have shown little connection between gang homicides and drug trade/use and crime (5). Gangs and gang members are involved in a variety of high-risk behaviors that sometimes include drug and crime involvement, but gang-related homicides usually are attributed to other circumstances (6)."

    Source: 
    "Gang Homicides — Five U.S. Cities, 2003–2008," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control, January 27, 2012) Vol. 61, No. 3, p. 48.
    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6103.pdf

  56. (Violence As a Result of Drug Law Enforcement) "Based on the available English language scientific evidence, the results of this systematic review suggest that an increase in drug law enforcement interventions to disrupt drug markets is unlikely to reduce violence attributable to drug gangs. Instead, from an evidence-based public policy perspective and based on several decades of available data, the existing evidence strongly suggests that drug law enforcement contributes to gun violence and high homicide rates and that increasingly sophisticated methods of disrupting organizations involved in drug distribution could unintentionally increase violence. In this context, and since drug prohibition has not achieved its stated goal of reducing drug supply, alternative models for drug control may need to be considered if drug-related violence is to be meaningfully reduced."

    Source: 
    International Centre for Science in Drug Policy, "Effect of Drug Law Enforcement on Drug-Related Violence: Evidence from a Scientific Review," (Vancouver, British Columbia: 2010), p. 22.
    http://www.icsdp.org/docs/ICSDP-1%20-%20FINAL.pdf

  57. (Drug Dealing and Employment) The average "dealer" holds a low-wage job and sells part-time to obtain drugs for his or her own use. "Earnings for drug selling were positively correlated (though weakly) with legitimate earnings. Drug selling seemed to be a complement to, rather than a substitute for, legitimate employment."

    Source: 
    Reuter, P., MacCoun, R., & Murphy, P., Money from Crime: A Study of the Economics of Drug Dealing in Washington DC (Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation, 1990), pp. 49-50.
    http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/2005/R3894.pdf

  58. Transnational Organized Crime

    "The simple fact is that transnational organized crime is big business in an increasingly globalized economy. From China to Nigeria to Mexico, entrepreneurial criminals will navigate around laws and across borders, supplying illegal or illegally acquired goods and services to meet the demands of the highest bidders. Whether it is drugs, human kidneys, human beings, illegally harvested timber, weapons, or rhinoceros horns, as long as someone is willing to buy it, someone will be willing to sell it."

    Source: 
    Haken, Jeremy, "Transnational Crime In The Developing World," Global Financial Integrity (Washington, DC: Center for International Policy, February 2011), p. 1.
    http://www.gfintegrity.org/storage/gfip/documents/reports/transcrime/gfi...

  59. "Starting in the 1970s, but accelerating in the early 1990s, a new form of organized crime took hold. The combination of a new geopolitical climate, a globalized world economy and resulting softer borders, and a revolution in information technology available to crime groups hastened a shift. Crime groups changed from domestic organized crime groups that were regional in scope and hierarchically structured to criminal organizations that are global and transnational in nature, increasingly networked with other criminal groups, and often flatter in structure."

    Source: 
    Picarelli, John T., "Responding to Transnational Organized Crime: Supporting Research, Improving Practice," NIJ Journal (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, October 2011) No. 268, p. 6.
    https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/235889.pdf

  60. (Definition of Transnational Organized Crime) "Transnational organized crime refers to those self-perpetuating associations of individuals who operate transnationally for the purpose of obtaining power, influence, monetary and/or commercial gains, wholly or in part by illegal means, while protecting their activities through a pattern of corruption and/or violence, or while protecting their illegal activities through a transnational organizational structure and the exploitation of transnational commerce or communication mechanisms. There is no single structure under which transnational organized criminals operate; they vary from hierarchies to clans, networks, and cells, and may evolve to other structures. The crimes they commit also vary. Transnational organized criminals act conspiratorially in their criminal activities and possess certain characteristics which may include, but are not limited to:
    "• In at least part of their activities they commit violence or other acts which are likely to intimidate, or make actual or implicit threats to do so;
    "• They exploit differences between countries to further their objectives, enriching their organization, expanding its power, and/or avoiding detection/apprehension;
    "• They attempt to gain influence in government, politics, and commerce through corrupt as well as legitimate means;
    "• They have economic gain as their primary goal, not only from patently illegal activities but also from investment in legitimate businesses; and
    "• They attempt to insulate both their leadership and membership from detection, sanction, and/or prosecution through their organizational structure."

    Source: 
    "Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime: Addressing Converging Threats to National Security," Office of the President of the United States (Washington, DC: April 2011)
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/2011-strategy-c...

  61. "The problem is that most efforts against drugs are national, or, at best, bilateral, when the scale of the trafficking is global. Without a strategy scaled to fit the size of the problem, successful national efforts run the risk of simply displacing contraband flows. When opposed, the drug markets in cocaine and heroin have consistently adapted, finding new cultivation areas, new transit zones, and new consumer markets. In many cases, they have settled in the areas of least resistance, which are precisely the areas least equipped to deal with the challenge. And it is here that organized crime can escalate to the level of being a threat to stability."

    Source: 
    "The Globalization of Crime: A Transnational Organized Crime Threat Assessment," United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (Vienna, Austria: 2010), p. 272.
    http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/tocta/TOCTA_Report_2010...

  62. (Proceeds of Transnational Organized Crime "The overall best estimates of criminal proceeds are close to US$2.1 trillion in 2009 or 3.6% of global GDP [Gross Domestic Product] (95% confidence interval: 2.7%-4.4%). If only typical transnational organized crime proceeds were considered (resulting from trafficking drugs, counterfeiting, human trafficking, trafficking in oil, wildlife, timber, fish, art and cultural property, gold, human organs and small and light weapons), the estimates would be around 1.5% of GDP. About half of these proceeds were linked to trafficking in drugs."

    Source: 
    "Estimating Illicit Financial Flows Resulting from Drug Trafficking and Other Transnational Organized Crimes," United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (Vienna, Austria: 2011), p. 9.
    http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Studies/Illicit_financi...

  63. (Estimated Value of Transnational Organized Crime)

    Value of the Illicit International Trade
    Market Estimated Value of

    Illicit International Trade

    Share
    Illegal Drugs - Total $321,000,000,000      49.7%  
    Cannabis Herb & Resin 141,000,000,000 21.8%
    Cocaine 71,000,000,000 11.0%
    Opiates 65,000,000,000 10.1%
    Amphetamine Stimulants 44,000,000,000 6.8%
    Counterfeiting - Total 250,000,000,000      38.8%  
    Counterfeit Electronics 50,000,000,000 7.8%
       Counterfeit Pharmaceuticals 37,500,000,000 5.8%
    Counterfeit Cigarettes 2,600,000,000 0.4%
    Human Trafficking      31,600,000,000      4.9%  
    Oil 10,800,000,000      1.7%  
    Wildlife 8,900,000,000      1.4%  
    Timber 7,000,000,000      1.1%  
    Fish 6,850,000,000      1.1%  
    Art and Cultural Property 4,850,000,000      0.8%  
    Gold 2,300,000,000      0.4%  
    Human Organs 907,000,000      0.1%  
    Diamonds & Colored Gemstones 860,000,000      0.1%  
    Small Arms & Light Weapons 650,000,000      0.1%  
    TOTAL - approximation $645,717,000,000      100.0%  

    Notes:
    • † Number is computed as the midpoint between a range. Example: "Small Arms & Light Weapons" = 650,000,000 (halfway between $300 million and $1 billion).
    • The estimates of the values for the various drugs come from the 2005 World Drug Report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNDOC).
    • The values for Cannabis resin ($28 billion) and Cannabis herb ($113 billion) are combined. The UNDOC considers the numbers for herb to be "rather weak due to the paucity of underlying data."
    • "The ATS (Amphetamine-type stimulants) market consists of three main products: methamphetamine, amphetamine and ecstasy.

     
    Source: 
    Haken, Jeremy, "Transnational Crime In The Developing World," Global Financial Integrity (Washington, DC: Center for International Policy, February 2011), p. 56.
    http://www.gfintegrity.org/storage/gfip/documents/reports/transcrime/gfi...
    United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), World Drug Report 2005 (Vienna, Austria: UNODC, June 2005), p. 143.
    http://www.unodc.org/pdf/WDR_2005/volume_1_web.pdf

  64. Data Tables

    (Total Annual Arrests by Year and Category) Although the intent of a 'War on Drugs' may have been to target drug smugglers and 'King Pins,' according to the FBI's annual Uniform Crime Reports, of the 1,552,432 arrests for drug law violations in 2012, 82.2% (1,276,099) were for mere possession of a controlled substance. Only 17.8% (276,333) were for the sale or manufacturing of a drug. Further, nearly half (48.3%) of drug arrests in 2012 were for marijuana -- a total of 749,825. Of those, an estimated 658,231 arrests (42.4% of all drug arrests) were for marijuana possession alone. By contrast in 2000, a total of 734,497 Americans were arrested for marijuana offenses, of which 646,042 (40.9%) were for possession alone.

    US Arrests As Reported By FBI UCR Program
    Year Total Arrests Total Drug Arrests Total Marijuana Arrests Marijuana Trafficking/Sale Arrests Marijuana Possession Arrests Total Violent Crime Arrests Total Property Crime Arrests
    2012 12,196,959 1,552,432 749,825 91,593 658,231 521,196 1,646,212
    2011 12,408,899 1,531,251 757,969 94,937 663,032 534,704 1,639,883
    2010 13,120,947 1,638,846 853,839 103,247 750,591 552,077 1,643,962
    2009 13,687,241 1,663,582 858,408 99,815 758,593 581,765 1,728,285
    2008 14,005,615 1,702,537 847,863 93,640 754,224 594,911 1,687,345
    2007 14,209,365 1,841,182 872,720 97,583 775,137 597,447 1,610,088
    2006 14,380,370 1,889,810 829,627 90,711 738,916 611,523 1,540,297
    2005 14,094,186 1,846,351 786,545 90,471 696,074 603,503 1,609,327
    2004 13,938,071 1,746,570 773,731 87,329 686,402 586,558 1,644,197
    2003 13,639,479 1,678,192 755,186 92,300 662,886 597,026 1,605,127
    2002 13,741,438 1,538,813 697,082 83,096 613,986 620,510 1,613,954
    2001 13,699,254 1,586,902 723,628 82,519 641,109 627,132 1,618,465
    2000 13,980,297 1,579,566 734,497 88,455 646,042 625,132 1,620,928
    1999 14,355,600 1,557,100 716,266 85,641 630,626 644,770 1,676,100
    1998 14,528,300 1,559,100 682,885 84,191 598,694 675,900 1,805,600
    1997 15,284,300 1,583,600 695,201 88,682 606,519 717,750 2,015,600
    1996 15,168,100 1,506,200 641,642 94,891 546,751 729,900 2,045,600
    1995 15,119,800 1,476,100 588,964 85,614 503,350 796,250 2,128,600
    1990 14,195,100 1,089,500 326,850 66,460 260,390 705,500 2,217,800
    1980 10,441,000 580,900 401,982 63,318 338,664 475,160 1,863,300
    Total

    1996-2012

    236,438,421 28,002,034 12,318,682 1,549,101 11,427,813 10,421,804 28,750,970
     
    Source: 
    "Crime in the United States 2012 - Arrests," FBI Uniform Crime Report (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, September 2013), p. 1.
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-...
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-...
    "Crime in the United States 2011 - Arrests," FBI Uniform Crime Report (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, October 2012), p. 1.
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-...
    Arrests for Drug Abuse Violations: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-...
    "Crime in the United States 2010," FBI Uniform Crime Report (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, September 2011), Table 29.
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-...
    Arrests for Drug Abuse Violations: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-...
    "Crime in the United States 2009," FBI Uniform Crime Report (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, September 2010), Table 29.
    http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_29.html
    Arrests for Drug Abuse Violations: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/arrests/index.html.
    "2008 Crime in the United States," FBI Uniform Crime Reports (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, September 2009), Table 29.
    http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_29.html
    Arrests for Drug Abuse Violations: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/arrests/index.html.
    "2007 Crime in the United States," (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, September 2008), Table 29.
    http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_29.html
    Arrests for Drug Abuse Violations: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/arrests/index.html
    "2006 Crime in the United States," (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, September 2007), Table 29.
    http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_29.html
    Arrests for Drug Abuse Violations: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/arrests/index.html
    "Crime in the United States 2005," FBI Uniform Crime Reports (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, September 2006), Table 29.
    http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_29.html
    Arrests for Drug Abuse Violations: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/arrests/index.html
    "Crime in the United States 2004," FBI Uniform Crime Reports (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2005) Table 29.
    http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/persons_arrested/table_29.html
    Arrests for Drug Abuse Violations: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/persons_arrested/index.html
    "Crime in the United States 2003," FBI Uniform Crime Reports (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2004), p. 269, Table 4.1 & and p. 270, Table 29.
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2003/03sec4.pdf
    "Crime in the United States 2002," FBI Uniform Crime Reports (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, 2003).
    http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/arrested/04-table29.html
    "Crime in the United States 2001," FBI Uniform Crime Reports (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2002), p. 232, Table 4.1 & and p. 233, Table 29. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2001/01sec4.pdf
    "Crime in the United States - 2000," FBI Uniform Crime Reports (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2001), p. 216, Tables 29 and 4.1.
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2000/toc00.pdf
    "Crime in the United States - 1999," FBI Uniform Crime Reports (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2000), pp. 211-212.
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1999/toc99.pdf
    "Crime in the United States - 1998," FBI Uniform Crime Reports (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1999), pp. 209-219.
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1998/toc98.pdf
    "Crime in the United States - 1997," FBI Uniform Crime Reports (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1998), p. 221, Table 4.1 & p. 222, Table 29.
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1997/toc97.pdf
    "Uniform Crime Reports for the United States 1996" Federal Bureau of Investigation (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1997), p. 213, Table 4.1 & p. 214, Table 29.
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/toc96.pdf
    "Crime in the United States - 1995," FBI Uniform Crime Reports (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1996), pp. 207-208.
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1995/toc95.pdf
    FBI, UCR for the US 1990 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1991), pp. 173-174.
    FBI, UCR for the US 1980 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1981), pp. 189-191.

  65. (Total Annual Marijuana Arrests and Total Drug arrests) (Note: Totals are contained in Annual Arrests data table.)

    US Marijuana Arrests Percentage Share of Total Drug Arrests
    - Year - Marijuana

    % of Total Drug Arrests

    Marijuana Manufacturing & Sale

    % of Total Drug Arrests

    Marijuana Possession

    % of Total Drug Arrests

    2012 48.3% 5.9% 42.4%
    2011 49.5% 6.2% 43.3%
    2010 52.1% 6.3% 45.8%
    2009 51.6% 6.0% 45.6%
    2008 49.8% 5.5% 44.3%
    2007 47.4% 5.3% 42.1%
    2006 43.9% 4.8% 39.1%
    2005 42.6% 4.9% 37.7%
    2004 44.3% 5.0% 39.3%
    2003 45.0% 5.5% 39.5%
    2002 45.3% 5.4% 39.9%
    2001 45.6% 5.2% 40.4%
    2000 46.5% 5.6% 40.9%
    1999 46.0% 5.5% 40.5%
    1998 43.8% 5.4% 38.4%
    1997 43.9% 5.6% 38.3%
    1996 42.6% 6.3% 36.3%
    1995 39.9% 5.8% 34.1%
     
    Source: 
    FBI Uniform Crime Reports 1970-2011. Please see sources cited above in US Arrests table.

  66. (Percent Change in Arrests Totals 1996-2010) (Note: Totals are contained in Annual Arrests data table.)

    Annual Percent Change in Total, Drug, and Marijuana Arrests, 1996-2010
    Year Total Arrests Total Drug Arrests Total Marijuana Arrests Marijuana Trafficking & Sale Arrests Marijuana Possession Arrests
    2010 -4.1% -1.5% -0.5% 3.4% -1.1%
    2009 -2.3% -2.3% 1.2% 6.6% 0.6%
    2008 -1.4% -7.5% -2.8% -4.0% -2.7%
    2007 -1.2% -2.6% 5.2% 7.6% 4.9%
    2006 2.0% 2.4% 5.5% 0.3% 6.2%
    2005 1.1% 5.7% 1.7% 5.7% 1.7%
    2004 2.2% 4.1% 2.5% -5.4% 3.5%
    2003 -0.7% 9.1% 8.3% 11.1% 8.0%
    2002 0.3% -3.0% -3.7% 0.7% -4.2%
    2001 -2.0% 0.5% -1.5% -6.7% -0.8%
    2000 -2.6% 1.4% 2.5% 3.3% 2.4%
    1999 -1.2% -0.1% 4.9% 1.7% 5.3%
    1998 -4.9% -1.5% -1.8% -5.1% -1.3%
    1997 0.8% 5.1% 8.3% -6.5% 10.9%
    1996 0.3% 2.0% 8.9% 10.8% 8.6%
    15-year Average -0.9% 0.8% 2.6% 1.4% 2.8%
     
    Source: 
    FBI Uniform Crime Reports 1970-2010. Please see cite sources for U.S. Arrests table.