CALIFORNIA CAREGIVERS UNION, CORP
 

Table 12.  Selected States With Largest and Smallest Disparities Between 1995 Black and White Arrest Rates for Opiate/Cocaine Possession.
(minimum one million coverage population)

 

All

black

white

Am.

Indian

Asian

Pac

Ratio

B:W

Minnesota

77

1,430

20

113

14

70.36

Ohio

216

1,035

62

11

26

16.83

Wisconsin

74

510

31

46

6

16.60

Indiana

49

253

16

0

3

16.15

Tennessee

64

371

24

0

10

15.55

             

Arizona

54

254

47

33

5

5.37

Utah

80

418

78

131

3

5.33

New York

329

1,028

200

76

1

5.13

Massachusetts

179

693

144

22

31

4.80

California

290

809

283

90

14

2.85

Note:  Rates are per 100,000 population.

Table 14 provides more specific data on counties that had at least 100 opiate/cocaine possession arrests and had a black population of at least 1,000.  The high arrest rate for blacks in Minnesota reported in Table 13 is reflected here with more specific data on Hennepin County in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area, where the black arrest rate of 1,830 is 62.47 times higher than the white rate for opiate/cocaine possession of 29.  Adding further emphasis to the apparent preference for arresting minorities in Minnesota, the arrest rate for American Indians was 165, over five times the white rate.  The dominant trend in Table 14 is that even where the white arrest rate is relatively high, the black rate is several magnitudes higher.  For example, in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), OH the arrest rate for whites is 241 per 100,000, but the rate for blacks is 2,493, higher by a magnitude of 10.33.

The disparities between black and white arrest rates is even higher when arrests for opiate/cocaine sales is considered in Table 15 (according to the same criteria of Table 14, a minimum of 100 arrests and a black population of at least 1,000).  In Hennepin County, MN the black arrest rate is 480 compared to the white arrest rate of six, making the black rate nearly 84 times higher.  In Columbus, OH (Franklin County) the black rate is nearly 40 times higher.  The Jackson, MO (Kansas City metro area), only has an arrest rate for this drug offense of nine per 100,000 for blacks, however, the white rate is only one per 100,000.  Even when the black arrest rate is low, the white rate is even lower.  And when the white rate is relatively high, such as in Newark, NJ (Essex County: 143 per 100,000), the black rate is several magnitudes higher.  In this case the black rate is 10.31 times higher; the black arrest rate in Essex County, NJ is 1,476 per 100,000.

Table 13.  Metropolitan Core Counties With Largest Disparities Between 1995 Black and White Arrest Rates for Opiate/Cocaine Possession.

Metro Area

County

ST

All

black

white

Am.

Indian

Asian

Pac

Ratio

B:W

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI

Hennepin

MN

163

1,830

29

165

6

62.47

Columbus, OH

Franklin

OH

143

668

34

0

40

19.40

Tulsa, OK

Tulsa

OK

67

447

25

19

0

17.93

Pittsburgh, PA

Allegheny

PA

113

639

40

0

0

15.95

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL

Pinellas

FL

275

1,845

125

0

29

14.72

Rochester, NY

Monroe

NY

2 27

1,193

84

0

6

14.13

Indianapolis, IN

Marion

IN

11

40

3

0

0

12.94

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY

Erie

NY

387

1,909

173

97

18

11.02

Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN

Hamilton

OH

166

567

52

0

0

10.93

Louisville, KY-IN

Jefferson

KY

62

247

23

0

0

10.76

Monmouth-Ocean, NJ

Monmouth

NJ

196

1,113

105

0

5

10.55

Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria. OH

Cuyahoga

OH

832

2,493

241

79

71

10.33

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL

Hillsborough

FL

321

1,404

141

0

31

9.94

Orlando, FL

Orange

FL

244

966

100

0

29

9.69

Atlanta, GA

Fulton

GA

729

1,261

133

0

124

9.47

Jacksonville, FL

Duval

FL

220

644

69

0

10

9.35

Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA

Multnomah

OR

470

2,739

314

668

70

8.72

Las Vegas, NV-AZ

Clark

NV

27

133

16

0

2

8.36

Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI

Milwaukee

WI

150

465

56

69

0

8.24

Sacramento, CA

Sacramento

CA

89

458

56

14

2

8.21

Providence-Fall River-Warwick, RI-MA

Providence

RI

113

609

75

37

87

8.13

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC

Mecklenburg

NC

143

395

54

0

0

7.35

Houston, TX

Harris

TX

150

498

69

9

4

7.19

Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV

Washington

DC

605

877

123

0

25

7.14

New Haven-Meriden, CT

New Haven

CT

345

1,475

210

0

16

7.02

Note:  Rates are per 100,000 population.


Table 14.  Metropolitan Core Counties With Largest Disparities Between 1995 Black and White Arrest Rates for Opiate/Cocaine Sales.

Metro Area

County

ST

All

black

white

Am.

Indian

Asian

Pac

Ratio

B:W

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI

Hennepin

MN

40

480

6

10

0

83.75

Columbus, OH

Franklin

OH

59

304

8

0

25

39.72

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC

Mecklenburg

NC

223

772

25

0

0

31.01

Sacramento, CA

Sacramento

CA

58

465

16

7

0

29.11

Cincinnati, Oh.-KY-IN

Hamilton

OH

105

413

16

0

0

25.59

Tulsa, OK

Tulsa

OK

49

342

16

16

15

21.26

Pittsburgh, PA

Allegheny

PA

137

835

40

0

0

20.93

Indianapolis, IN

Marion

IN

164

611

32

0

0

18.79

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL

Pinellas

FL

97

687

41

0

0

16.77

Las Vegas, NE-AZ

Clark

NV

44

277

18

0

0

15.25

Fort Worth-Arlington, TX

Tarrant

TX

71

392

26

0

0

15.14

Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV

District of Columbia

DC

110

165

11

0

0

14.86

Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI

Milwaukee

WI

146

512

36

109

0

14.23

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY

Erie

NY

40

214

15

0

0

13.99

Fort Lauderdale, FL

Broward

FL

120

519

37

0

8

13.92

Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria. OH

Cuyahoga

OH

178

558

44

0

0

12.83

Stamford-Norwalk, CT

Fairfield

CT

213

1,185

100

0

16

11.82

West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, FL

Palm Beach

FL

107

486

47

0

8

10.37

Newark, NJ

Essex

NJ

707

1,476

143

119

9

10.31

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL

Hillsborough

FL

132

583

57

0

37

10.27

Riverside-San Bernardino, CA

Riverside

CA

30

199

20

41

0

10.13

Riverside-San Bernardino, CA

San Bernardino

CA

51

293

31

17

0

9.55

Stockton-Lodi, CA

San Joaquin

CA

124

871

93

0

8

9.39

Jacksonville, FL

Duval

FL

80

230

26

0

0

8.80

Kansas City, MO-KS

Jackson

MO

3

9

1

0

0

8.70

Note:  Rates are per 100,000 population.


Section Five: Commentary

Racial disparities in drug arrests are consistent over time, not explained by differences in drug use, and a widespread characteristic of criminal justice systems throughout the country.  The Uniform Crime Report data demonstrates that racial disparities in drug arrests are consistent over time.  While racial disparities exist in all arrests, racial disparities in drug possession arrests are not explained by differences in the number of drug users and instead indicate that law enforcement characteristics are responsible.  The disparities in arrests of blacks and whites are consistent at the local county level as well.  While a few exceptions exist, when it comes to drug offenses blacks are arrested at a higher rate than whites in every part of the United States.

Possible Explanations For Racial Disparity In U.S. Drug Law Enforcement

Open Air Drug Markets

One possible explanation is that differences in arrest rates are due to economical differences in the sale and/or purchase of drugs.  According to this theory, blacks are more likely than whites to buy and sell drugs in public, "on the street" as it is popularly referred to by law enforcement.  Three popular tactics for police to enforce drug laws are street sweeps, the use of undercover officers and the reduction of serious charges in exchange for turning in others for drug offenses.  All three thrive on infiltration of public drug markets.  However, the drug trade also flourishes in private by way of individual appointments, long-time relationships and other more discreet ways of conducting commercial transactions.  If public drug markets are easier to infiltrate than private ones, and if blacks are more likely to frequent public drug markets than private, than this could explain the wide gap in arrests rates of blacks and whites.

Law Enforcement Bias?

Another consideration is that racial disparities are one of many systemic characteristics of drug law enforcement.  Under this interpretation the issue of concern is not so much the cause of the outcomes but the capacity of the system to eliminate these disparities.  For the purpose of this interpretation, local law enforcement is considered a “black box.”  Regardless of how or why it functions the way it is, law enforcement is producing outcomes -- arrests, and these outcomes have a consistent characteristic – a revealed preference for the arrest of blacks at several times the rate for whites.  As this sort of outcome has generally held to be unacceptable in terms of national standards of fairness and justice, the issue really shifts to explanations that provide acceptable remedies.

Arrests serve two law enforcement objectives.  They provide an immediate sanction in response to alleged criminal activity – punishment.  Also, regardless of their eventual outcome, arrests are also supposed to have a deterrent effect.  But when faced with equal numbers of both races, police arrest several times more blacks than whites. These sanctions appear to be based more on racial considerations than criminal activity.  Furthermore, these disparities undercut the deterrence value of drug arrests.  Blacks and whites both have a pretty good idea of what the odds are even if they don't know the actual figures.  For example, the national rate for marijuana possession arrests is 193 per 100,000 population.  The marijuana arrest rate is higher for blacks and lower for whites, (427 and 167 respectively).  For all drug arrests, the overall rate is 596, but as indicated above when considered separately it is 1,785 for blacks and only 440 for whites.  At the local level these disparities are even more volatile. The overall rate masks two often widely different levels of arrests for blacks and whites.  When it comes to enforcement of the drug laws, the United States has two separate and unequal standards of sanction and deterrence.

Drug arrests in the United States increased from 1.1 million in 1990 to nearly 1.6 million in 1998 and like overall arrest rates these figures are deceiving.  Drug arrests were just under 1.4 million in 1989 and over 10 years increased just 14.5 percent.  Of greater interest is that non-marijuana drug arrests have actually decreased in this 10-year period, from 963,722 in 1989 to 876,214 in 1998.  They dropped by 200,000 in 1990 and remained at that level until 1994 when non-marijuana arrests rose to 870,302 and fluctuated at a similar level reaching 876,214 in 1998.  Even with large reductions in violent crime and the increased resources available during the 1990s local law enforcement as a complete system appears to have reached a limit at a million or less non-marijuana drug arrests per year.  It is the number of marijuana arrests per year that has grown tremendously during the 1990s, from close to 400,000 in 1989 to nearly 700,000 in 1998.

Marijuana Prohibition’s Racist Beginnings

Drug arrests in general and marijuana arrests in particular have long been associated with minority groups than with whites.

Passage of the Harrison Act reflected, in part, growing public sentiment that opium and cocaine were medicines to be taken only in times of illness (and then only when prescribed by a physician) and that these substances could cause insanity and crime, particularly in foreigners and minorities. Smoking opium was associated with Chinese immigrants; popular belief also held that cocaine would affect blacks more forcefully than whites and incite them to violence. Marijuana was believed to have been brought into the country and promoted by Mexican immigrants and then picked up by black jazz musicians. These beliefs played a part in the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act, which attempted to control the drug's use. As early as 1910, many people argued against any non-medical use of narcotics. [1]

Prior to the mid-1960s, marijuana use in the United States was mostly confined  to various subgroups such as Mexican laborers, jazz musicians, and beatniks. Although portrayed as a killer weed and a menace by anti-marijuana reformers, there is little evidence that it was either at this time. In 1937, the Marihuana Tax Act (the Federal government then spelled marijuana with an "h"), became law, making the use and sale of marijuana without a tax stamp Federal offenses. Some companies were permitted to apply for a license to use cannabis products (e.g., for birdseed, paint and rope), and doctors could still prescribe marijuana in limited circumstances. However, starting in 1937, recreational use was punished with greater severity. Some speculated that the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act resulted from strong anti-Mexican sentiment in the Southwest and the political power of Anslinger [the Commissioner of the federal Bureau of Narcotics.]. [2]

Need For State and Federal Studies

The factors and influences discussed in this report suggest a number of areas for further study of racial differences in drug arrests.  Racial disparities in drug arrest rates are a social cost associated with drug control policies of the 20th century.  Whether the social costs of differences in drug arrest rates can be justified in the 21st century depends on a number of questions that determine if there are any benefits to contemporary policies that justify these social costs.  Important questions for further study include:

  • Are there significant differences in where and how blacks and whites buy drugs?
  • How do police enforcement tactics affect racial disparities in arrests?
  • What is the influence of aggressive policing in inner city areas on these disproportionate arrest rates?
  • Do racial disparities in drug arrest rates affect the deterrent value of arrests for drug use?
  • Is it possible to increase arrest rates for whites without further increasing arrest rates for blacks?
  • How does race affect police discretion whether to make an arrest for possession or issue a warning and simply confiscate the drugs for destruction?
  • What is the benefit to crime reduction, if any, of increasing marijuana arrests?
  • How do increases in user sanctions affect the availability of drugs?
  • How do mandatory/minimum sentences for drug trafficking affect the availability of drugs?
Suggestions On How To Alleviate Racial Disparity In U.S. Drug Law Enforcement

As suggested above one remedy for racial disparities is to radically narrow the scope of drug control laws to the sale of dangerous drugs.  This approach has three stages.    1) Eliminate arrests for marijuana through its rescheduling under existing provisions of the Controlled Substances Act.  2) Repeal mandatory-minimum sentencing and allow judges to distinguish levels of culpability and responsibility in individual cases and sentence defendants accordingly.  3) Distinguish between the public interest in drug control and public health through decriminalization of drug possession offenses.

These steps would eliminate 75 percent of all drug arrests in 1995 and reduce the black arrest for all drugs by 2/3.  More importantly, these reforms would shift the primary practice of drug arrests from a somewhat arbitrary use of criminal sanctions to encourage sobriety to the punishment of individuals who damage the community by selling dangerous drugs outside the legal system of regulation and control.  This distinction is impossible to make as long as marijuana is considered in the same enforcement category as cocaine and heroin, compounded with drug possession arrests as a path of least resistance for drug law enforcement.

Criminal Sanctions Versus Coerced Treatment

There are many individuals, organizations and industries that believe court sanctions are the only way to get some seriously addicted individuals into treatment.  However, this is not the legal purpose of the nation's drug laws, and the public interest in integrating drug treatment into rehabilitation programs can be served by providing such treatment to individuals whose dependency on drugs has contributed to the commission of real crimes.  The use of laws against marijuana sales and possession, along with the laws against possession of any illegal substance, to sweep the streets of people presumed to be prone to commit other crimes amounts to nothing more than preventive detention.  Of equal importance, and far beyond the scope of this report, is the moral value of individual choice and personal responsibility that is lost when 'drug treatment' is rendered a function of state coercion.

…Grist Amongst The Millstone

At issue here are not just the racial disparities in arrests reviewed and discussed above, but the presumptions that flow from such data.  Only a small percentage of drug users are ever arrested, and law enforcement readily acknowledges that only a small percentage of drug users can ever be arrested.  This changes law enforcement from a protective posture to a predatory one; police, employing highly subjective and publicly unacknowledged criteria, decide on a daily basis where they will go to look to make drug-related arrests.  According to arrest data, they turn to the black community as the most likely place to make drug arrests, and consequently they tend to look more and more often to all blacks as being the best percentage play for making another arrest.  The incidence of police stops of blacks on the highways has increased so much over the last 10 years that there is now a satirical name for the imaginary offense – “Driving While Black.”  This is but one of several alarming symptoms of eroding respect for law enforcement in the United States.

Conclusion

Racial disparities in drug arrests represent a serious threat to the integrity of the criminal justice system that should concern all Americans.  The interpretation of this data and the remedies recommended in this report are subject to debate.  However, the data are clear.  The differences in arrest rates between blacks and whites are significant, stark and unambiguous.  In the United States, black drug users face a far greater chance of encountering the criminal justice system than white drug users.  Sadly, in this area, justice is not blind.



[1] U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies for Understanding and Preventing Substance Abuse and Addiction, OTA-EHR-597 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1994).  Pg. 178

[2] ibid  Pg. 179. 

Appendix 1a.  Arrest and Population Data for Drug Arrest Rates 1991

   

All

Black

White

Am. Indian

As. Pacific

             

All Drug Arrests

Arrests

682,583

303,836

371,452

1,614

3,606

 

Population

165,843,152

21,873,466

135,933,008

1,148,824

6,887,846

All Drug Arrests

Rate

411.58

1,389.06

273.26

140.49

52.35

             

Opiate/Cocaine Sales

Arrests

145,240

92,706

50,212

138

740

 

Population

131,066,168

17,926,156

105,999,888

958,819

6,181,304

Opiate/Cocaine Sales

Rate

110.81

517.15

47.37

14.39

11.97

             

Marijuana Sales

Arrests

39,195

11,919

27,035

105

136

 

Population

135,065,456

17,860,822

109,960,848

1,005,750

6,238,034

Marijuana Sales

Rate

29.02

66.73

24.59

10.44

2.18

             

Opiate/Cocaine Possession

Arrests

233,571

118,862

112,722

391

1,301

 

Population

146,748,176

19,687,676

119,445,368

1,036,917

6,578,212

 

Rate

159.16

603.74

94.37

37.71

19.78

             

Marijuana Possession

Arrests

140,890

35,154

104,276

545

915

 

Population

156,907,056

20,394,558

128,694,424

1,108,642

6,709,438

 

Rate

89.79

172.37

81.03

49.16

13.64


Appendix 1b.  Arrest and Population Data for Drug Arrest Rates 1992

   

All

Black

White

Am. Indian

As. Pacific

             

All Drug Arrests

Arrests

832,064

352,902

472,793

2,036

4,333

 

Population

176,378,096

23,544,784

144,265,968

1,234,995

7,332,344

 

Rate

471.75

1,498.85

327.72

164.86

59.09

             

Opiate/Cocaine Sales

Arrests

174,951

102,742

71,384

132

693

 

Population

136,239,792

19,104,930

109,613,296

996,716

6,524,851

 

Rate

128.41

537.78

65.12

13.24

10.62

             

Marijuana Sales

Arrests

46,534

12,891

33,327

127

189

 

Population

143,164,576

19,078,694

116,378,144

1,068,490

6,639,250

 

Rate

32.50

67.57

28.64

11.89

2.85

             

Opiate/Cocaine Possession

Arrests

278,403

139,830

136,559

518

1,496

 

Population

151,634,432

20,625,878

122,950,472

1,100,678

6,957,405

 

Rate

183.60

677.93

111.07

47.06

21.50

             

Marijuana Possession

Arrests

179,291

42,587

134,961

722

1,021

 

Population

164,684,592

21,395,098

134,977,312

1,177,351

7,134,823

 

Rate

108.87

199.05

99.99

61.32

14.31


Appendix 1c.  Arrest and Population Data for Drug Arrest Rates 1993

   

All

Black

White

Am. Indian

As. Pacific

             

All Drug Arrests

Arrests

858,853

354,172

498,022

2,274

4,385

 

Population

172,883,232

23,008,564

141,041,680

1,259,422

7,573,568

 

Rate

496.78

1,539.31

353.10

180.56

57.90

             

Opiate/Cocaine Sales

Arrests

166,425

99,324

66,370

169

562

 

Population

131,500,848

18,431,906

105,318,544

1,025,503

6,724,892

 

Rate

126.56

538.87

63.02

16.48

8.36

             

Marijuana Sales

Arrests

46,713

14,914

31,430

156

213

 

Population

143,481,296

19,028,170

116,354,104

1,113,138

6,985,881

 

Rate

32.56

78.38

27.01

14.01

3.05

             

Opiate/Cocaine Possession

Arrests

271,947

133,943

136,015

530

1,459

 

Population

148,760,144

19,944,718

120,516,416

1,108,765

7,190,238

 

Rate

182.81

671.57

112.86

47.80

20.29

             

Marijuana Possession

Arrests

208,599

53,106

153,500

893

1,100

 

Population

161,329,824

20,734,836

131,989,200

1,200,471

7,405,319

 

Rate

129.30

256.12

116.30

74.39

14.85


Appendix 1d.  Arrest and Population Data for Drug Arrest Rates 1994

   

All

Black

White

Am. Indian

As. Pacific

             

All Drug Arrests

Arrests

1,016,909

410,419

598,333

2,819

5,338

 

Population

180,106,032

24,284,128

146,585,728

1,295,522

7,940,659

 

Rate

564.62

1,690.07

408.18

217.60

67.22

             

Opiate/Cocaine Sales

Arrests

171,567

101,533

69,291

147

596

 

Population

135,187,552

19,082,274

108,012,664

1,061,240

7,031,368

 

Rate

126.91

532.08

64.15

13.85

8.48

             

Marijuana Sales

Arrests

52,306

18,297

33,592

174

243

 

Population

147,319,808

19,690,838

119,193,248

1,139,126

7,296,600

 

Rate

35.51

92.92

28.18

15.27

3.33

             

Opiate/Cocaine Possession

Arrests

307,177

147,618

157,151

659

1,749

 

Population

155,255,296

20,896,124

125,628,536

1,163,846

7,566,778

 

Rate

197.85

706.44

125.09

56.62

23.11

             

Marijuana Possession

Arrests

267,247

74,217

190,519

1,127

1,384

 

Population

165,958,672

21,509,476

135,489,104

1,231,489

7,728,592

 

Rate

161.03

345.04

140.62

91.52

17.91


Appendix 1e.  Arrest and Population Data for Drug Arrest Rates 1995

   

All

Black

White

Am. Indian

As. Pacific

             

All Drug Arrests

Arrests

1,063,133

415,149

638,949

3,122

5,913

 

Population

178,322,496

23,650,916

145,236,912

1,300,177

8,134,492

 

Rate

596.19

1,755.32

439.94

240.12

72.69

             

Opiate/Cocaine Sales

Arrests

163,423

97,386

65,291

168

578

 

Population

139,832,736

19,947,382

111,564,656

1,082,236

7,238,451

 

Rate

116.87

488.21

58.52

15.52

7.99

             

Marijuana Sales

Arrests

55,647

20,593

34,547

208

299

 

Population

150,706,080

20,354,986

121,705,744

1,155,308

7,490,038

 

Rate

36.92

101.17

28.39

18.00

3.99

             

Opiate/Cocaine Possession

Arrests

306,413

143,792

160,323

627

1,671

 

Population

159,093,712

21,871,514

128,268,944

1,160,940

7,792,314

 

Rate

192.60

657.44

124.99

54.01

21.44

             

Marijuana Possession

Arrests

335,198

97,405

234,591

1,318

1,884

 

Population

173,474,960

22,881,054

141,285,808

1,271,869

8,036,230

 

Rate

193.23

425.70

166.04

103.63

23.44


Appendix 2.  Racial Disparities in 1995 Arrests

1995 Uniform Crime Report Data

Arrest Rate Per 100,000

Ratio
of
 black:
white

Offense

All

black

white

Am. Indian

Asian/
Pacific

Robbery

81.36

351.25

38.91

44.71

21.10

9.03

Sale of Opiates and Cocaine

114.80

485.94

57.45

15.42

7.33

8.46

Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter

11.43

42.42

6.11

6.03

3.18

6.94

Drug Sale/manufacturing (Subtotal)

160.01

602.78

96.15

42.75

14.69

6.27

Possession of Opiates and Cocaine

192.32

665.20

124.63

53.58

21.08

5.34

Forcible Rape

15.43

49.58

10.25

11.46

3.42

4.84

Vagrancy

28.52

90.05

19.60

42.36

1.78

4.59

Stolen Property - Buying, Receiving, Poss.

72.80

222.23

50.93

56.52

20.29

4.36

Motor Vehicle Theft

80.32

242.87

55.91

82.71

33.96

4.34

Weapons - Carrying, Possessing, etc.

96.51

294.30

68.06

53.40

24.76

4.32

All Other Gambling

12.78

33.61

7.93

5.94

11.56

4.24

Aggravated Assault

222.61

665.14

159.86

175.20

57.01

4.16

Drug Abuse Violations (Total)

590.50

1,761.71

435.36

238.22

70.96

4.05

Suspicion

106.91

265.87

67.72

76.69

16.90

3.93

All Other Offenses (except traffic)

1,423.70

4,005.99

1,065.67

1,190.44

344.26

3.76

Fraud

151.11

416.98

114.02

62.38

29.52

3.66

Other Assaults

480.25

1,316.29

363.41

532.42

111.60

3.62

Sale of Marijuana

36.65

101.19

28.21

17.88

3.95

3.59

Disorderly Conduct

287.87

781.43

220.67

305.56

38.55

3.54

Sale of Other Dangerous Non-Narc. Drugs

36.42

96.96

27.91

14.25

4.86

3.47

Drug Possession (Subtotal)

446.32

1,210.93

349.57

199.41

55.95

3.46

Gambling (Total)

16.68

40.26

11.85

6.06

11.77

3.40

Forgery and Counterfeiting

47.80

124.41

36.98

23.46

16.64

3.36

Larceny - Theft (except motor vehicle)

583.33

1,509.56

452.83

596.83

217.46

3.33

Offenses Against

Family and Children

60.77

148.24

47.59

38.35

24.06

3.11

Burglary - Breaking or Entering

142.16

352.89

114.15

90.20

34.88

3.09

Prostitution and

Commercialized Vice

72.41

169.43

56.41

52.49

23.67

3.00

Embezzlement

10.30

24.24

8.24

5.86

2.42

2.94

Possession of Marijuana

192.84

429.22

165.64

102.83

23.10

2.59

Vandalism

117.72

221.49

105.31

140.60

33.51

2.10

Arson

8.98

16.71

8.08

8.53

2.02

2.07

Sex Offenses

38.24

68.90

34.73

36.27

10.62

1.98

Poss.  of Oth. Dangerous Non-Narc. Drugs

92.21

167.24

85.03

60.32

13.42

1.97

Sale of Synthetic Narcotics

10.79

17.68

9.77

3.92

0.39

1.81

Runaways

139.69

219.69

129.55

126.15

94.63

1.70

Curfew and loitering law Violations

129.00

203.21

122.06

125.39

33.54

1.66

Manslaughter by Negligence

1.65

2.53

1.56

1.72

0.33

1.62

Liquor laws

201.06

304.75

191.22

457.70

32.95

1.59

Bookmaking (Horse and Sport Book)

6.42

9.28

6.36

1.70

1.14

1.46

Drunkenness

482.57

653.22

479.14

975.98

38.09

1.36

Possession of Synthetic Narcotics

17.03

22.77

16.72

8.05

1.44

1.36

Number and Lottery

6.10

7.69

5.99

0.00

0.39

1.28

Driving Under the Influence

448.90

355.58

483.50

451.93

94.94

0.74


Appendix 3.  Annual Use of Marijuana and Illicit Drugs in 1995, by Race

Annual Use of Marijuana

Percentage

Population Estimates

 

black

white

All*

black

white

All*

New England:

CT, ME, MA, RI, VT, NH

-

9.72%

9.56%

-

935,332

3,285,800

Middle Atlantic:

NJ, NY, PA

10.05%

6.82%

6.98%

417,592

1,824,022

5,002,256

East North Central:

 IL, IN, MI, OH, WI

12.34%

8.29%

8.74%

388,086

2,239,354

4,441,525

West North Central:

IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD

13.27%

9.17%

9.44%

101,767

1,577,967

4,660,180

South Atlantic:

DE, DC, MD, WV, VA, NC, SC, GA, FL

7.78%

7.80%

7.99%

646,408

2,262,855

4,023,757

East South Central:

AL, KY, MS, TN

8.36%

7.50%

7.65%

214,760

873,205

2,543,394

West South Central:

AR, LA, OK, TX

7.57%

6.52%

6.96%

226,505

1,126,555

2,701,474

Mountain:

AZ, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, UT, WY

18.33%

9.66%

10.17%

67,410

1,080,780

4,555,713

Pacific:

AK, CA, OR, WA, HI

13.41%

10.44%

9.88%

277,176

2,928,949

21,056,886

United States

9.49%

8.36%

8.39%

2,350,313

14,849,024

17,754,705

             

Annual Use of Any Illicit Drug

Percentage

Population Estimates

 

black

white

All*

black

white

All*

New England:

CT, ME, MA, RI, VT, NH

-

10.74%

10.55%

-

1,034,083

3,893,417

Middle Atlantic:

NJ, NY, PA

12.75%

8.29%

8.52%

529,907

2,216,590

6,239,655

East North Central:

 IL, IN, MI, OH, WI

14.04%

10.80%

11.10%

441,841

2,915,371

5,544,444

West North Central:

IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD

16.05%

11.14%

11.46%

123,040

1,917,969

5,664,893

South Atlantic:

DE, DC, MD, WV, VA, NC, SC, GA, FL

11.19%

8.99%

9.36%

929,985

2,607,104

5,113,854

East South Central:

AL, KY, MS, TN

9.46%

11.17%

10.83%

242,800

1,300,952

3,499,197

West South Central:

AR, LA, OK, TX

10.38%

8.93%

9.37%

310,539

1,542,537

3,778,478

Mountain:

AZ, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, UT, WY

24.73%

14.06%

14.85%

90,908

1,574,053

6,162,693

Pacific:

AK, CA, OR, WA, HI

17.61%

13.48%

12.96%

364,112

3,782,212

26,994,500

United States

12.30%

10.63%

10.71%

3,047,722

18,890,875

22,662,329

 

Source: U.S. Dept. Of Health And Human Services, Substance Abuse And Mental Health Services Administration, Office Of Applied Studies. National Household Survey On Drug Abuse, 1995[Computer File]. ICPSR Version. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute/Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center [Producers], 1997. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium For Political and Social Research [Distributor], 1997.


"A Union of the people for the people, created to fight sides with the people"                             (The sick, the ill and the strong will withstand to the end, unified and fearless)

                                                                                                      501(c)(3) non-profit corp.
 Corporate Office 6765 Westminster Blvd Suite C, Westminster CA 92683

Powered by Wild Apricot. Try our all-in-one platform for easy membership management