Crime, Arrests, and Law Enforcement

2022: Of the estimated 907,958 arrests for drug law violations in the United States in 2022, 87.8% (797,187) were for possession of a controlled substance and 12.2% (110,771) were for sale or manufacture of a drug.

2020: Of the estimated 1,155,610 arrests for drug law violations in the United States in 2020, 86.7% (1,001,914) were for possession of a controlled substance. Only 13.3% (153,696) were for sale or manufacture of a drug.

2019: Of the estimated 1,558,862 arrests for drug law violations in the United States in 2019, 86.7% (1,351,533) were for possession of a controlled substance. Only 13.3% (207,328) were for sale or manufacture of a drug.

2018: Of the estimated 1,654,282 arrests for drug law violations in the US in 2018, 86.4% (1,429,300) were for possession of a controlled substance. Only 13.6% (224,982) were for sale or manufacture of a drug.

2015: Of the estimated 1,488,707 arrests for drug law violations in the US in 2015, 83.9% (1,249,025) were for possession of a controlled substance. Only 16.1% (239,682) were for sale or manufacture of a drug.

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

• Table: Drug Arrests in the US
• Table: Total Annual Arrests in the US by Year and Type of Offense

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 Part One offense violent crimes and 1,448,700 arrests for Part One offense property offenses.

In 2020, there were an estimated 1,155,610 arrests for drug law violations out of an estimated total of 7,632,473 arrests nationwide for all offenses. Also in 2020, the UCR estimated there were 482,408 arrests for Part One violent crimes and 871,370 arrests for Part One offense property crimes.

• Table: Drug Arrest Data from 2010-2020
• Table: Total Annual Arrests in the US by Year and Type of Offense

Important note: According to the UCR, "The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program divides offenses into two groups, Part I and Part II crimes, in its Summary Reporting System. Each month, participating law enforcement agencies submit information on the number of Part I offenses that become known to them; those offenses cleared by arrest or exceptional means; and the age, sex, and race of persons arrested for each of the offenses. Contributors provide only arrest data for Part II offenses."

"Results  No significant changes were detected in violent crimes or property crimes recorded by police, 911 calls for crime or medical incidents, or 311 calls regarding drug use or unsanitary conditions observed in the vicinity of the OPCs. There was a significant decline in low-level drug enforcement, as reflected by a reduction in arrests for drug possession near the OPCs of 82.7% (95% CI, −89.9% to −70.4%) and a reduction in their broader neighborhoods of 74.5% (95% CI, −87.0% to −50.0%). Significant declines in criminal court summonses issued in the immediate vicinity by 87.9% (95% CI, −91.9% to −81.9%) and in the neighborhoods around the OPCs by 59.7% (95% CI, −73.8% to −38.0%) were observed. Reductions in enforcement were consistent with the city government’s support for the 2 OPCs, which may have resulted in a desire not to deter clients from using the sites by fear of arrest for drug possession.

"Conclusions and Relevance  In this difference-in-differences cohort study, the first 2 government-sanctioned OPCs in the US were not associated with significant changes in measures of crime or disorder. These observations suggest the expansion of OPCs can be managed without negative crime or disorder outcomes."

In 2022, the FBI reports there were a total of 907,958 arrests for all drug offenses, of which 110,771 were for sale or manufacture of any drug, and 797,187 were for possession of any drug.

Of the 110,771 sale/manufacture arrests in 2022, 39,950 were for heroin, cocaine, and their derivatives; 22,699 were for marijuana; 5,448 were for synthetic or manufactured drugs; and 43,582 were for "other dangerous nonnarcotic" drugs.

Of the 797,187 possession arrests in 2022, 154,353 were for heroin, cocaine, and their derivatives; 245,149 were for marijuana; 35,410 were for synthetic or manufactured drugs; and 362,275 were for "other dangerous nonnarcotic" drugs. 
 

• Table: Drug arrests from 2010-2020
• Table: Total Annual Arrests in the US by Year and Type of Offense, 1996-2020

"One primary reason for sentencing an offender to prison is deterrence—conveying the message that losing one’s freedom is not worth whatever one gains from committing a crime. If imprisonment were an effective deterrent to drug use and crime, then, all other things being equal, the extent to which a state sends drug offenders to prison should be correlated with certain drug-related problems in that state. The theory of deterrence would suggest, for instance, that states with higher rates of drug imprisonment would experience lower rates of drug use among their residents.

"To test this, Pew compared state drug imprisonment rates with three important measures of drug problems — self-reported drug use (excluding marijuana), drug arrest, and overdose death — and found no statistically significant relationship between drug imprisonment and these indicators. In other words, higher rates of drug imprisonment did not translate into lower rates of drug use, arrests, or overdose deaths.

"State pairings offer illustrative examples. For instance, Tennessee imprisons drug offenders at more than three times the rate of New Jersey, but the states’ rates of self-reported drug use are virtually the same. (See Figure 3.) Conversely, Indiana and Iowa have nearly identical rates of drug imprisonment, but Indiana ranks 27th among states in self-reported drug use and 18th in overdose deaths compared with 44th and 47th, respectively, for Iowa.

"The results hold even when controlling for standard demographic variables, including the percentage of the population with bachelor’s degrees, the unemployment rate, the percentage of the population that is nonwhite, and median household income."

According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, in 2022, of the 1,232,428 violent offenses known to police, only 36.7 percent were cleared by arrest or exceptional means. Of the 6,513,829 property offenses known to police in 2022, only 12.1 percent were cleared by arrest or exceptional means.

In 2020, of the 1,277,696 violent offenses known to police, 41.7 percent were cleared by arrest or exceptional means. Of the 6,452,038 property offenses known to police in 2020, 14.6% were cleared by arrest or exceptional means. 

In 2000, of the 1,131,923 violent offenses known to police, 47.5 percent were cleared by arrest or exceptional means. Of the 8,235,013 property offenses in 2000 known to police, only 16.7 percent were cleared by arrest or exceptional means. 

Table: Clearance Rates for Reported Violent and Property Crimes in the US, 1996-2020 and 2022 

"Cleared by arrest

"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 2022, may pertain to offenses that occurred in previous years. Cleared by exceptional means In certain situations, elements beyond law enforcement’s control prevent the agency from arresting and formally charging the offender. When this occurs, the agency can clear the offense exceptionally. Law enforcement agencies must meet the following four conditions in order to clear an offense by exceptional means. The agency must have: 
"• Identified the offender.

"• Gathered enough evidence to support an arrest, make a charge, and turn over the offender to the court for prosecution.

"• Identified the offender’s exact location so that the suspect could be taken into custody immediately.

"• Encountered a circumstance outside the control of law enforcement that prohibits the agency from arresting, charging, and prosecuting the offender.

"Examples of exceptional clearances include, but are not limited to, the death of the offender (e.g., suicide or justifiably killed by police or citizen); the victim’s refusal to cooperate with the prosecution after the offender has been identified; or the denial of extradition because the offender committed a crime in another jurisdiction and is being prosecuted for that offense. In the UCR Program, the recovery of property alone does not clear an offense. "

"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."

"Among 995 participants who were interviewed in 2019–2021, 63 (6.3%) had their drugs seized by police at least once in the past 6 months. In multivariable analyses, factors significantly associated with drug seizure included: homelessness (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 1.98; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09–3.61), working in the unregulated drug market (AOR: 4.93; 95% CI 2.87–8.49), and naloxone administration (AOR: 2.15; 95% CI 1.23–3.76). In 2009–2012, 67.8% reported having obtained new drugs immediately after having their drugs seized by police. Odds of drug seizure were not significantly different between the two time periods (2019–2021 vs. 2009–2012) (AOR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.64–1.35)."

"During the 16-month study period between June 2019 and November 2021 (June 2019–mid-March 2020 and June 2021–November 2021), 6% of our sample of people who used drugs daily in Vancouver reported having had their drugs seized by police without arrest at least once in the past 6 months. When examining the historical trends of annual prevalence, we found a declining trend in reports of drug seizure from 7% in 2009 to 3% in 2012, while the prevalence between June 2019 and mid-March 2020 and between June and November of 2021 (4–5%) remained essentially the same as the annual prevalence in 2011–2012. However, overall, the odds of drug seizure were not significantly different between the two time periods (2019–2021 vs. 2009–2012).

"The low documented numbers of recommended charges for simple possession by the VPD [Vancouver Police Department] are often cited to indicate success of VPD’s de facto depenalization policy [24]. Certainly, recommended charges for simple possession and drug seizure without arrest are two distinct practices and not directly comparable; however, given that statistics regarding the former are almost the only data used to assess the extent of depenalization, it is worth examining the potential discrepancy between the two to deepen our understanding of street-level drug law enforcement activities. For example, in 2019, VPD recommended 36 charges for simple possession to Crown Counsel [7]. In contrast, in our study, participants reported experiencing at least 35 drug seizures by police during the 6 months prior to their interview date between June and December 2019. The number of unique events was much higher than 35 given that a substantial portion of participants (approx. 45% of those who reported the number of occurrences of police seizure of drugs) experienced having their drugs seized more than once during the same 6-month period. These findings corroborate previous anecdotal reports [8] and show that drug seizure without arrest occurs more frequently than the VPD’s recommended charges for simple possession.

"Some negative consequences of criminal justice involvement may be avoided by police not recommending charges for simple possession. However, we found that more than two-thirds of PWUD [People Who Use Drugs] who were interviewed in 2009–2012 obtained more drugs immediately after police seized their drugs. These findings suggest that this policing practice may still lead to health and safety harms for PWUD. For example a previous qualitative study that interviewed PWUD in 2017 described that police seizure of drugs inadvertently promoted the creation of drug debts and increased the risk of drug market violence among PWUD [11]. Some PWUD were also forced to refill their drug supply hastily from an unknown unregulated drug market worker especially when experiencing withdrawal [11, 25]. Each time an individual has to return to the unregulated market, especially if accessing drugs from an unknown source, they are increasing their risk of fatal or non-fatal overdose. In this regard, drug seizure essentially ‘mimics the health and safety harms associated with criminalization’ [15], undermining the intended benefits of the VPD’s depenalization policy. Of concern, a previous qualitative study reported that some police officers in BC believed that seizure of drugs is ‘beneficial for preventing harms, including overdose’, though it was not made clear whether it referred to VPD officers or other officers in BC or both [26]."

In 2020, law enforcement agencies in the US made an estimated 7,632,473 arrests for all offenses, of which 1,155,610 were drug arrests.

Although the intent of a 'War on Drugs' may have been to target drug smugglers and 'King Pins,' of the 1,155,610 arrests for drug law violations in 2020, 86.7% (1,001,914) were for mere possession of a controlled substance. Only 13.3% (153,696) were for the sale or manufacturing of a drug. Further, 30.3% of drug arrests in 2020 were for marijuana offenses -- a total of 350,150. Of those, an estimated 317,793 arrests (27.5% 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.

Table: Total Annual Arrests in the US by Year and Type of Offense, 1996-2020

"GAO found that 48 jurisdictions (47 states and D.C.) have enacted both Good Samaritan and Naloxone Access laws. Kansas, Texas and Wyoming do not have a Good Samaritan law for drug overdoses but have a Naloxone Access law. The five U.S. territories do not have either type of law. GAO also found that the laws vary. For example, Good Samaritan laws vary in the types of drug offenses that are exempt from prosecution and whether this immunity takes effect before an individual is arrested or charged, or after these events but before trial.

"GAO reviewed 17 studies that provide potential insights into the effectiveness of Good Samaritan laws in reducing overdose deaths or the factors that may contribute to a law’s effectiveness. GAO found that, despite some limitations, the findings collectively suggest a pattern of lower rates of opioid-related overdose deaths among states that have enacted Good Samaritan laws, both compared to death rates prior to a law’s enactment and death rates in states without such laws. In addition, studies found an increased likelihood of individuals calling 911 if they are aware of the laws. However, findings also suggest that awareness of Good Samaritan laws may vary substantially across jurisdictions among both law enforcement officers and the public, which could affect their willingness to call 911."

"In 2020, nearly $80 billion was budgeted for local police departments nationwide (table 15). The estimated 110 departments serving 250,000 or more residents in 2020 accounted for 43% of this funding. (See table 4.) These departments represented fewer than 1% of all local police departments but employed about 41% of all full-time sworn local officers. Police departments serving fewer than 10,000 residents had the smallest budget per FTE sworn officer ($109,000)."

"• In the nation in 2022, 36.7 percent of violent crimes and 12.1 percent of property crimes were cleared by arrest or exceptional means. (See Table 25.)
"• When considering clearances of violent crimes, 52.3 percent of murder offenses, 41.4 percent of aggravated assault offenses, 26.1 percent of rape offenses, and 23.2 percent of robbery offenses were cleared. (See Table 25.)
"• Among property crimes, 13.0 percent of burglary offenses, 12.4 percent of larceny-theft offenses, and 9.3 percent of motor vehicle theft offenses were cleared. (See Table 25.)
"• In 2022, 25.2 percent of arson offenses were cleared by arrest or exceptional means. (See Table 25.)"

"Our population-based study provides evidence that police seizures of substances identified as opioids or stimulants are significantly associated with increased spatiotemporal clustering of overdose events in the immediate surrounding geographic area (radii of 100 m, 250 m, and 500 m) over 1-, 2-, and 3-week periods. Importantly, the difference in spatiotemporal clustering of all 3 overdose event rates before and after opioid-related seizures was higher than expected under the estimated null distribution across all radii and time intervals although this pattern of association was less consistent among stimulant-related seizures. This is consistent with our hypothesized mechanism because persons with opioid use disorder who lose their supply will experience both diminishing tolerance and withdrawal, whereby even the anticipation of painful symptoms may lead them to seek a new supply while discounting risks that stem from the differences in potency inherent in an illicit opioid market; this results in unknown tolerance, uncertainty about a safe dose, and increased overdose risk."We were unable to assert a causal relationship between law enforcement drug market disruptions and overdose, and our study was not designed to, but our results are consistent with other evidence of this association.18,19,22–24 Moreover, federal agencies already recognize the harms that emerge from these disruptions; for example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention developed the Opioid Rapid Response Program, an interagency effort designed to reduce overdose by rapidly increasing access to treatment of chronic pain and substance use disorder in the wake of enforcement actions against pain clinics and opioid prescribers.25,26 Routine supply-side interdictions among police may merit similar efforts to prevent resulting overdose in the surrounding community—but with more frequent need, given the prevailing volume of seizures."Officers might also use the considerable discretion at their disposal when interacting with persons who use drugs, particularly in enforcing misdemeanors or nonviolent felonies that regulate drugs to reduce harms that might come from disrupting an individual’s drug supply.27 Additionally, our study suggests that information on drug seizures may provide a touchpoint that is further upstream than other postoverdose events, providing greater potential to mitigate harms. For example, although the role of law enforcement in overdose remains a topic of debate,28 public safety partnerships could entail timely notice of interdiction events to agencies that provide overdose prevention services, outreach, and referral to care.25"

"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."

"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"

"During 2012-15, U.S. residents experienced 5.8 million violent victimizations per year (table 1). About 3.7 million of these violent victimizations were committed against white victims.³ Among white victims, a higher percentage of victimizations were committed by white offenders (57%) than offenders of any other race. White victims perceived the offender to be black in 15% of violent victimizations and Hispanic in 11%.⁴

"Of the 850,720 victimizations committed against black victims, a higher percentage involved black offenders (63%) than offenders of any other race. Black victims perceived the offender to be white in 11% of violent victimizations and Hispanic in nearly 7%.

"Fewer than half (40%) of violent victimizations committed against a Hispanic victim were committed by a Hispanic offender. However, the percentage committed by a Hispanic offender was higher than any racial category. An equal percentage of victimizations committed against a Hispanic victim was committed by a white or black offender (20% each)."

"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 2020, may pertain to offenses that occurred in previous years.

"Cleared by exceptional means

"In certain situations, elements beyond law enforcement’s control prevent the agency from arresting and formally charging the offender. When this occurs, the agency can clear the offense exceptionally. Law enforcement agencies must meet the following four conditions in order to clear an offense by exceptional means. The agency must have:

"• Identified the offender.

"• Gathered enough evidence to support an arrest, make a charge, and turn over the offender to the court for prosecution.

"• Identified the offender’s exact location so that the suspect could be taken into custody immediately.

"• Encountered a circumstance outside the control of law enforcement that prohibits the agency from arresting, charging, and prosecuting the offender.

"Examples of exceptional clearances include, but are not limited to, the death of the offender (e.g., suicide or justifiably killed by police or citizen); the victim’s refusal to cooperate with the prosecution after the offender has been identified; or the denial of extradition because the offender committed a crime in another jurisdiction and is being prosecuted for that offense. In the UCR Program, the recovery of property alone does not clear an offense."

"Our study adds to a growing body of literature that suggests drug criminalization and supply-side interdiction might produce more public harm than public good. This casts doubt on the core assumption of state and federal drug policy and suggests that police officers intending to protect the public’s health and safety may be inadvertently exacerbating harms such as fatal overdose. Policymakers need to revisit the role drug policies play in perpetuating an overdose epidemic that is negatively affecting the nation’s life expectancy. This should include careful consideration of the population-level consequences from decades of interdiction efforts that have not resulted in any meaningful reduction in the price or availability of drugs in the community over any substantial period and may contribute to increased risk of overdose and its sequelae, including death."

"Slightly less than half of all sworn SROs reported that they had confiscated drugs (45%) within the past 30 days (figure 6). Nearly 4 in 10 SROs had made an arrest (39%) or issued a criminal citation (37%) in the past 30 days. About 23% of SROs had confiscated a weapon.

"Sworn SROs in school district police departments were the most likely to report confiscating drugs (60%), followed by SROs in local police departments (47%). A higher percentage of SROs in local police departments (41%) than in sheriffs’ offices (35%) or school district police departments (29%) had issued criminal citations. A smaller portion of SROs in sheriffs’ offices (32%) than in local police departments (41%) or school district police departments (45%) reported that they had made an arrest in the past 30 days."

"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."

"Although no amount of policy analysis can resolve disagreements about how much punishment drug offenses deserve, research does make clear that some strategies for reducing drug use and crime are more effective than others and that imprisonment ranks near the bottom of that list. And surveys have found strong public support for changing how states and the federal government respond to drug crimes.

"Putting more drug-law violators behind bars for longer periods of time has generated enormous costs for taxpayers, but it has not yielded a convincing public safety return on those investments. Instead, more imprisonment for drug offenders has meant limited funds are siphoned away from programs, practices, and policies that have been proved to reduce drug use and crime."

"As of December 31, 2020, more than 14,700 general-purpose law enforcement agencies in the United States employed about 708,000 full-time sworn officers and 348,000 full-time civilians. Local police departments accounted for about 80% (11,800) of the general-purpose agencies, employing nearly 67% (473,000) of full-time sworn personnel and 36% (126,000) of full-time civilian personnel (figure 1, table 1).¹

"The total number of full-time personnel in local police departments increased nearly 13% from 1997 to 2020. The number of full-time sworn officers with general arrest powers also increased nearly 13%, from 420,000 in 1997 to 473,000 in 2020. The number of full-time civilians increased 24% from 1997 to 2007 (from 111,000 to 138,000) but then decreased nearly 9% (from 138,000 to 126,000) between 2007 and 2020."

"• In 2016, there were about 100,000 full-time federal law enforcement officers in the United States and U.S. territories who primarily provided police protection, compared to 701,000 full-time sworn officers in general-purpose state and local law-enforcement agencies nationwide.

"• About two-thirds of all full-time federal law enforcement officers worked for either Customs and Border Protection (33%), the Federal Bureau of Prisons (14%), the FBI (10%), or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (9%).

"• Between 2008 and 2016, the Amtrak Police had the largest percentage increase in full-time federal law enforcement officers (40%), followed by the National Park Service Rangers (29%) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (27%).

"• The Bureau of Indian Affairs experienced the highest rate of assaults on officers in 2016 (143 assaults per 100 officers), which was more than triple the rate in 2008 (38 per 100) and more than 20 times the rate of any other agency."

"The Director of ONDCP has the authority to designate areas within the United States that are centers of illegal drug production, manufacturing, importation, or distribution as HIDTAs. The director must first consult with the Attorney General, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Homeland Security, heads of the relevant National Drug Control Program Agencies, and the governor of the applicable state.⁸ Four main criteria are considered when designating an area as a HIDTA:

"the extent to which [1] the area is a significant center of illegal drug production, manufacturing, importation, or distribution; [2] State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies have committed resources to respond to the drug trafficking problem in the area, thereby indicating a determination to respond aggressively to the problem; [3] drug-related activities in the area are having a significant harmful impact in the area, and in other areas of the country; and [4] a significant increase in allocation of Federal resources is necessary to respond adequately to drug related activities in the area.⁹

"The HIDTA program is designed with the county as its geographic unit of inclusion. As such, if an entire state were to be included in a HIDTA, this would be because each county within the state had been separately designated as a critical drug trafficking area. To begin the designation process, a coalition of law enforcement agencies may petition the Director of ONDCP for a county to be included in a HIDTA.¹⁰ There are 29 designated HIDTAs in the United States and its territories, as outlined in Table 1. The most recent HIDTA to be established was the Alaska HIDTA, which was announced on May 1, 2018.¹¹"

"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."

"In 2020, about 1,056,000 full-time personnel worked for general-purpose law enforcement agencies at the state, county, or local level (table 2). Of these personnel, almost 57% worked for local police departments. Of the 708,000 full-time sworn officers employed across the country, about 67% worked for local police departments. Local police departments employed 36% of the 348,000 full-time civilian personnel. These departments also employed about 69% of the 86,000 part-time personnel in general-purpose law enforcement agencies. About 79% of full-time personnel and 48% of part-time personnel in local police departments were sworn officers.

"In 2020, almost 6% (684) of local police departments had 100 or more full-time-equivalent (FTE) sworn officers (table 3).² These departments employed 62% of all full-time sworn officers and 69% of all full-time civilian personnel in local agencies nationwide. Almost half (46%) of departments had fewer than 10 FTE sworn officers. "

"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."

"Arrest statistics also have limitations for measuring the volume of arrests for a particular offense. Under the UCR Program, the FBI requires law enforcement agencies to classify an arrest by the most serious offense charged in that arrest. For example, the arrest of a youth charged with aggravated assault and possession of a controlled substance would be reported to the FBI as an arrest for aggravated assault. Therefore, when arrest statistics show that law enforcement agencies made an estimated 193,900 arrests of young people for drug abuse violations in 2004, it means that a drug abuse violation was the most serious charge in these 193,900 arrests. An unknown number of additional arrests in 2004 included a drug charge as a lesser offense."

"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."

"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.'"

"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."

"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."

"Illicit cross-border tunnels allow smugglers to move marijuana and, to a lesser extent, other drugs, weapons, currency, people, and other contraband illegally across the border. More than 170 illicit crossborder tunnels have been discovered in the United States since 1990.53 These tunnels have been found near POEs, where traffic and noise conceal tunneling activities.
"CBP and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have delineated four types of cross-border
tunnels. The type of tunnel constructed depends heavily on the region’s soil.54
"• Rudimentary tunnels are crudely constructed and travel a short distance. Shoring, machinery, electrical power, and ventilation are not used in their construction.
"• Interconnecting tunnels link at least one purpose-built section to preexisting underground infrastructure. The purpose-built section is usually crudely constructed.
"• Sophisticated tunnels may use shoring, ventilation, electricity, railroads, or water pumps, and can move large quantities of drugs, humans, currency, or firearms across the border. They typically link to private homes or warehouses in the United States and Mexico, even over long distances.
"• A fourth type of tunnel has been identified within the past five years in which traffickers employ horizontal directional-drilling equipment to construct a small-diameter tunnel in as little as two weeks. Attempts to construct these tunnels are infrequent.
"Marijuana comprises the overwhelming majority of illicit drug seizures from tunnels. Smuggling cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine through POEs is easier than moving marijuana due to the relatively smaller size of shipments."

"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."

"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)."

"Within the larger framework of the federal government’s efforts to counter drug trafficking is the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program. The program supports multiagency activities ranging from enforcement initiatives involving investigation, interdiction, and prosecution, to drug use prevention and treatment initiatives.

"Congress initially created the HIDTA program through the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-690) and permanently authorized it in the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-469). The HIDTA program provides assistance to law enforcement agencies—at the federal, state, local, and tribal levels—operating in areas of the United States that have been deemed as critical drug trafficking regions. The program is designed with the county as its geographic unit of inclusion. There are 29 designated HIDTAs in the United States, cutting across all 50 states, the District Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

"The HIDTA program is administered by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). However, each of the HIDTA regions is governed by its own Executive Board, which has the flexibility to design and implement initiatives that confront the specific drug trafficking threats in its region. For FY2018, Congress appropriated $280.0 million for the HIDTA program, a 10.2% increase over the FY2017 appropriation of $254.0 million. Each HIDTA receives a base amount of funding (ranging from approximately $3.1 million to $14.6 million in FY2017) to support initiatives in its region, and the remainder is allocated to support specific initiatives throughout the country."

"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"

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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.”14 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 two years. The Attorney General then has the authority to keep the substance on Schedule I for an additional one year before it must be removed or permanently scheduled. The Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 2012—Subtitle D of Title XI of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (P.L. 112-144)—extended the DEA’s temporary scheduling authority. Prior to enactment of this act on July 9, 2012, the DEA was able to temporarily place a substance on Schedule I of the CSA for one year, with a potential extension of six months."

"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."

"Homicide is the second leading cause of death among persons aged 15–24 years in the United States (4). In some cities, such as Los Angeles and Long Beach, gang homicides account for the majority of homicides in this age group (61% and 69%, respectively). The differences observed in gang versus nongang homicide incidents with regard to victim demographics, place of injury, and the use of drive-by shootings and firearms are consistent with previous reports (5). 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). Newark was an exception by having a higher proportion of gang homicides being drug-related. A possible explanation of this divergent finding could be that Newark is experiencing homicides by gangs formed specifically for drug trade. Overall, these findings support a view of gang homicides as retaliatory violence. These incidents most often result when contentious gang members pass each other in public places and a conflict quickly escalates into homicide with the use of firearms and drive-by shootings."

"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."

"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 neighborhoods. 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 young 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 racially-biased mainly because the police are systematically "fishing" for arrests in only some neighborhoods, and methodically searching only some "fish."⁵ This produces what has been termed "racism without racists."⁶"

"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."

"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)."

"The central finding gleaned from the present study was that MML [Medical Marijuana Legalization] 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]."

"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)."

"Given that the current results failed to uncover a crime exacerbating effect attributable to MML [Medical Marijuana Legalization], 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."

"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."

"'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."

"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."

"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. [Emphasis in original.]

"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."

"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."

"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."

"Ninety-three percent of police respondents had attended a serious opioid overdose (defined in the survey) in their career, with 64 % having attended one in the past year. While 77 % of officers felt it was important they were at the scene of an overdose to protect medical personnel, a minority, 34 %, indicated it was important they were present for the purpose of enforcing laws. Arrest during the last overdose officers encountered was rare, with only 1 % of overdose victims and 1 % of bystanders being arrested. In cases in which no arrest was made, 25 % reported confiscating drugs or paraphernalia.

"The majority, 62 %, indicated the law would not change their behavior at a future overdose because they would not have arrested anyone at the scene of an overdose anyway. Smaller proportions indicated they would be less likely to arrest (14 %), did not know what they would do (20 %), or would continue to arrest people at the scene of an overdose (4 %)."

"Among heroin users, research indicates fear of police response as the most common barrier to not calling 911 during overdoses.^12,13 In a Baltimore study, 37 % of injection drug users who did not call 911 during an overdose endorsed concerns about police as the most important reason they did not call.¹³ Several states have enacted laws, commonly called Good Samaritan laws, to encourage calling 911 during overdoses on controlled substances; these laws are in part modeled on college campus alcohol Good Samaritan policies.¹⁴ Overdose Good Samaritan laws had been adopted in ten states as of the end of 2012, but they have not yet been evaluated.¹⁵ Generally, the laws include provisions that provide immunity from criminal prosecution for drug possession to overdose victims and to those who seek medical aid. Eight states have passed laws that ease access to take-home-naloxone by allowing the prescription of naloxone (an opioid antagonist or antidote) to persons at risk for having or witnessing an overdose, enabling bystanders to quickly respond in the event of an overdose.^3,15 Previous research suggests that police are sometimes under-informed, and often ambivalent to public health laws, especially those based in a risk reduction framework.^16,17"

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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"

On August 3, 2010, President Barack Obama "signed an historic piece of legislation that narrows the crack and powder cocaine sentencing disparity from 100:1 to 18:1 and for the first time eliminates the mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine."

"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."

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."