The Drug Law Blog notes that The Association of the Bar of the City of New York will be discussing Marijuana Arrest Policy tomorrow.
In 1977, New York State decriminalized possession of personal use amounts of marijuana. Nonetheless, researchers report that New York City is now the national leader in detaining individuals for possession of personal use amounts of marijuana. Beginning with the advent of quality of life policing, the New York City Police Department dramatically increased the number of arrests for marijuana possession: from 1997 to 2006 the Department arrested 362,000 people for possessing marijuana, in 2006 alone it arrested 33,000 people for marijuana possession. The Department also commonly holds marijuana possession arrestees in detention for up to 24 hours pending arraignment. Published research indicates that the marijuana possession arrests are not in central business districts, and that the police primarily make the arrests in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods.
Looks fascinating.
Drug Law Blog also has a post reviewing 2006 marijuana arrest stats for the entire US and ends with the following observation.
That's more than 1.5 million people who were arrested in 2006 simply for possession.
The link to my other post today should be obvious.
Comments
Actually, DM, I don't see how exceptionally poorly-excecuted laws on possession of marijuana relate to whether marijuana is easier or harder to kick than another substance.
Posted by: Becca | April 29, 2008 8:50 PM
Smoking weed kicks fucking ass!
Posted by: PhysioProf | April 29, 2008 10:35 PM
I think our drug laws are ridiculous, but when it comes to NY city, I can't deny that they've probably helped stop much of their violent crime problems.
Posted by: ecoli | April 30, 2008 12:44 AM
Really, ecoli? I would perhaps have concluded that taking a bunch of drug addicts and incarcerating them with serious criminals, giving them a chance to learn to imitate criminal behavior, was not our finest moment. Also, that whole ripping young men out of the community so that an insanely high fraction of inner city men have done time, and accordingly high proportions of inner city children don't have fathers...not likely to have been good for society.
Demographics, and a significant rise in standard of living with concomitant decrease in unemployment during the Clinton years are better guesses.
Posted by: Dr. Jekyll & Mrs. Hyde | April 30, 2008 2:27 AM