CHAPTER 8
CRIME, ALCOHOL, AND DRUGS

The connection between criminal activity and the use of drugs and alcohol has long been an issue in American society. Even before federal laws were passed in 1914 to control narcotics and other drugs, observers claimed that drug use and criminal activity were strongly linked. Drugs and alcohol are thought to encourage criminal behavior in several ways. Their use can reduce inhibitions, stimulate aggression, and interfere with critical thinking and motor skills (such as driving or operating machinery). Each of these factors may also reduce a person's ability to earn a legal income, which may lead the drug user to commit crimes in order to obtain money. For those using addictive drugs, the need to get money to support a drug habit may take priority over any other consideration.

Illegal drug users may also find themselves more frequently exposed to situations that encourage crime.

For the poor and underprivileged, drug and alcohol abuse can become an additional negative social condition within their environment. The same circumstances leading a person to commit crimes may also lead to drug use. In addition, the same conditions limiting employment opportunity may also contribute to both drug abuse and criminal behavior. Table 8.1 shows the relationship between drugs and crime.

SUBSTANCE-RELATED ARRESTS

In Crime in the United States, 2002 (Washington, D.C., 2003), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reported that of the 13.7 million estimated arrests in 2002, drug abuse violations accounted for 1.5 million arrests, or about 11 percent, making drug abuse violations the highest single category of arrest, followed by driving under the influence (1.5 million arrests), simple assaults (1.3 million), and larceny/theft (1.2 million). (See Table 8.2.)

Drug-Related Arrests

The federal government passed a number of anti-drug and anti-crime bills in the 1980s—the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 (PL 98-473), the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (PL 99-570), and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (PL 100-690). Each of these requires increased mandatory sentencing (see below), harsher sentencing, preventive detention, and even the death penalty for certain drug-related crimes. These laws were a major factor in the rising rate of drug arrests and prison sentences for drug convictions in the late 1980s and 1990s. The number of drug arrests rose from 1980 to 1995 by roughly 250 percent but held level from 1995 to 2000. (See Figure 8.1.)

Possession of drugs accounted for 80.3 percent of drug abuse violations in the United States in 2002 and 19.7 percent were for the sale or manufacturing of drugs. Possession of marijuana accounted for almost 40 percent of drug abuse violations in 2002. Heroin or cocaine and their derivatives accounted for 21.3 percent of arrests for possession and 8.8 percent of arrests for the sale or manufacture of drugs. (See Table 8.3.) These patterns were nearly identical to 1999 arrests for drug abuse violations nationally. In the Northeast the figures for sale or manufacturing were significantly higher, at almost 28 percent of all drug abuse arrests. (See Table 8.3.) Since 1982, arrests for possession of drugs have far outpaced arrests for their manufacture and sale. (See Figure 8.2.) Heroin and cocaine arrests grew from 1982 to 2001, rising from 13 percent of all drug arrests to 33 percent. (See Table 8.4.)

DEMOGRAPHICS.

Arrests for drug abuse violations in 2002 were prevalent among younger persons. A total of

49 percent (540,142) of those arrested for drug abuse violations were under age 25. Those under age 21 accounted for 31 percent (342,204) of arrests for drug violations while juvenile offenders under age 18 made up 12.1 percent (133,754) of arrests. Persons under age 15 accounted for 2 percent (21,836) of drug abuse arrests. Still, from 1970 to 1999, the number of adults arrested for drug abuse violations increased much more steeply than the number of juveniles. (See Figure 8.3.)

From 1993 to 2002 drug abuse arrests increased for all ages by 37 percent. Arrests of those under age 18 rose 59.1 percent. (See Table 1.5 in Chapter 1.) The number of females arrested for drug offenses rose 50 percent between 1993 and 2002, with arrests for females under 18 rising 120 percent during this time. (See Table 1.6 in Chapter 1.) Males continue to make up an overwhelming majority of drug abuse arrestees. In 2002 males accounted for 82 percent (798,695) of arrests for drug abuse violations, compared to 18 percent (175,387) for females.

In 2002 whites accounted for 66.2 percent of all arrests for drug abuse in the United States, while blacks accounted for 32.5 percent of all arrests. American Indians/Alaskan Natives (0.6 percent) and Asian/Pacific Islanders (0.7 percent) represented a very small proportion of total drug abuse arrests.

Alcohol-Related Arrests

In 2002 there were 840,384 arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), down 2.8 percent from the 864,000 DUI arrests in 1998. Similarly, arrests for drunkenness were down by 16.9 percent, from a total of 455,225 in 1998, to 378,102 in 2002. Arrests for liquor law violations decreased from 395,831 in 1998 to 357,222 in 2002, down 9.8 percent. Liquor law violations are common among juvenile offenders, as it is illegal for juveniles to possess or purchase alcoholic beverages. Among persons under 18 years of age in 2002, there were 79,758 arrests for liquor law violations, a decline of 21.9 percent since 1998, compared to a decline of only 5.5 percent (277,464 arrests) among arrestees 18 or older.

White offenders are consistently involved in more arrests for alcohol violations than other races. In 2002 white arrests made up 87.8 percent of driving under the influence offenses, 87.7 percent of the liquor law violations, and 83.7 percent of drunkenness arrests. American Indians/Alaskan Natives accounted for 2.5 percent of liquor law arrests and 2.3 percent of drunkenness arrests.

PRESENCE OF DRUGS AT THE TIME OF ARREST

In 1987 the National Institute of Justice introduced the Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF) to determine the

nature and extent of drug abuse in the nation by monitoring drug use of arrestees in 23 cities across the United States. In 1993 the DUF was criticized for producing data that were not generalized. This led to the redesign of the study, including its expansion to include 41 cities and new title, the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program, or ADAM. The new program added elements to make the collected data more accurate and valuable to the local sites in monitoring local drug trends. The NIJ also plans to eventually expand the program to 75 cities. The data, collected quarterly in central booking facilities of each city, comes from voluntary and anonymous interviews and urine specimens from selected arrestees. Except for marijuana and PCP, which can remain in the system for several weeks, all the other drugs had been used by arrestees in the preceding two or three days.

Adult Arrestees

In 2002 the 41 cities collected data from adult male arrestees and published the results in Preliminary Data on Drug Use and Related Matters among Adult Arrestees and Juvenile Detainees, 2002 (National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C., 2003). The percentage of male arrestees who tested positive for any drug use ranged from a high of 85 percent in Chicago, Illinois to a low of 43

percent in Woodbury, Iowa, with a median (half of the cities had higher percentages testing positive, half had lower) of 64 percent. (See Table 8.5.)

The findings are viewed as conservative estimates of drug use, since self-report studies tend to understate actual drug use. Urinalysis revealed that almost one-quarter (24.6 percent) of arrestees in about half of the cities had used more than one of 10 drugs. The use of more than one drug (any of 10) per arrestee ranged from 36.7 percent in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Sacramento, California to a low of 14.5 in Woodbury, Iowa. (See Table 8.6.) In most of the reporting cities, adult male arrestees were 32 years of age or older. In half the study sites, 30 percent or more of arrestees did not have a high school diploma. About 60 percent were employed, and over 80 percent had prior arrest records.

Data from the 1999 Annual Report on Drug Use Among Adult and Juvenile Arrestees (National Institute of Justice, 2000), show the range of drug use among arrestees in 34 U.S. cities in 1999. Among white male arrestees, the highest rate of use of any drug was in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, while the highest rate among African-American male arrestees was found in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Use of drugs among Hispanic male arrestees was highest in New York City, New York.

Among females, use of any drug by white arrestees was highest in New York City, while the largest proportion of African-American female arrestees were found to have used drugs in Albuquerque, and the largest proportion of Hispanic female arrestee drug users was found in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

Juvenile Arrestees

In 2000 drug use by male juvenile arrestees showed common trends. Marijuana use occurred with the most frequency, with the highest use in Phoenix (55 percent) and the lowest in Birmingham, Alabama (42 percent). Marijuana is the drug most commonly used by both male and female juvenile detainees, as reported in the 2000 Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program Report (National Institute of Justice, April 2003). Cocaine was the second most common drug, although far behind marijuana in usage. In only three sites did more than 10 percent of juvenile detainees test positive for cocaine.

Generally, the older the juvenile arrestee, the more likely he was to test positive for drug use. Juvenile arrestees aged 17 showed the highest proportion of drug use. Less than 5 percent of detainees were homeless or living in a shelter, while some 93 percent lived in houses or apartments. Of those living with their families, 52 percent lived in two-parent families and 40 percent in single-parent families. Of those in single-parent families, 82 percent lived with their mothers.

JUVENILE DRUG USE

In 2002 juveniles who regularly smoked cigarettes were more likely to use alcohol or illicit drugs, according to the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, September 2003). The survey also reported that in 2002, 11.5 percent of juveniles between the ages of 12 and 17 reported that they currently used illicit drugs. Marijuana was the most frequently used (8.2 percent of all juveniles), followed by psychotherapeutic drugs (4 percent of all juveniles), and inhalants (1.2 percent). The percentages between boys and girls aged 12 to 17 varied slightly. For boys, 12.3 percent used illicit drugs, while the rate was 10.9 percent for girls. Boys used marijuana more frequently, with girls more likely to use psychotherapeutic drugs nonmedically. Illicit drug use also varied by race and ethnicity. Native Americans showed the highest rate of illicit drug use (10.1 percent), followed by blacks (9.7 percent), whites (8.5 percent), and Asians (3.5 percent).

So-called "club drugs" such as Ecstasy (MDMA), Rohypnol (known as the date rape drug), GHB, and keta-mine have become popular among teenagers at dance clubs and "raves" in recent years. Because each of these club drugs is now scheduled under the Controlled Substances Act (Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970), they are illegal and their use constitutes a criminal offense.

According to the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, September 2003), 2.4 percent of 12- to 17-year-olds reported using Ecstasy, compared with 6.9 percent of 18- to 25-year-olds. Girls aged 12 to 17 (2.8 percent) were more likely to have used Ecstasy in the past year than were boys (1.9 percent), while those living in the Northeast and West were more likely to have used the drug than were those living in the Midwest. Numbers of new users of Ecstasy dropped from 1.9 million new users in 2000 to 1.8 million new users in 2001.

MORE DRUG OFFENDERS BEHIND BARS

At all levels—local, state, and federal—the number of drug offenders in prisons and jails increased dramatically from 1980 to 1993, far outstripping the generally sharp increase in the overall prison and jail populations. During this period, the total number of state prisoners almost tripled, and the number of federal prisoners increased fourfold. This trend changed by mid-decade. From 1995 to 2001 the largest growth in state prison population was in violent offenders. The number of drug offenders in state prisons increased by 30,600 inmates (15 percent of total growth) compared to violent offenders (63 percent of total growth) from 1995 to 2001.

From 1990 to 2001 the number of drug offenders in state prisons rose substantially. (See Figure 8.4.) From 1995 to 2001, female drug offenders accounted for 13 percent of the increase in total growth of female state prisoners sentenced, compared to a 49 percent growth in female violent offenders, and 22 percent growth in female property crime offenders. In comparison, male drug offenders accounted for 15 percent of the total growth of male state prison populations, with 64 percent of the growth attributed to male violent offenders. (See Table 8.7.) From 1995 to 2001 there was an increase of 19,100 black drug offenders in state prisons, accounting for 23 percent of the total growth of sentenced black prisoners under state jurisdiction. There were 16,200 additional white drug offenders in state prison and 1,400 fewer Hispanic drug offenders.

In 2002, of 14,054 homicides, 4.7 percent were drug-related, a slight decrease from 4.8 percent in 1998 but higher than the 2001 rate of 4.1 percent. (See Table 8.8.) Of crime victims in 2002, about 10.2 percent reported that they believed the offender was using drugs, either alone or in combination with alcohol. (See Table 8.9.)

Drug Offender Sentences

Federal and state laws consider a number of factors in establishing penalties for violators of drug laws. In general, the penalties for drug violations are determined by:

• The dangerousness of the drug
• Whether the violation is for drug possession or drug trafficking
• The amount of the drug involved
• The criminal history of the offender
• The location of the transaction, such as near a school or in a crack house
• The ages of the buyer and seller

Figure 8.5 shows the mean (average) and median (half were more; half were less) lengths of prison sentences for each drug type in fiscal year 2001. The highest mean and median sentences were for crack cocaine (115 months and 95 months, respectively), followed by methamphetamine, with a mean of 88.5 months and a median sentence of 70 months. The lowest mean and median sentences (38 months and 24 months) were for the most widely used illicit drug, marijuana.

MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCING.

Mandatory minimum sentences limit the sentencing discretion of the judge. While the law sets the minimum length of time to which a convicted felon can be sentenced, it does allow judges to impose sentences longer than the mandatory minimums. A first-time offender in a federal court facing a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence could receive anything from 10 years up to and including life imprisonment. For example, offenders convicted of possessing at least five grams of crack cocaine for their first conviction, three grams for their second conviction, and one gram for their third conviction are sentenced to a mandatory minimum prison sentence of five years and a maximum sentence of 20 years.

Many law enforcement officials think some mandatory sentences are too harsh for the crime. As a result, some prosecutors charge the accused with lesser crimes than those for which they were arrested, and some judges ignore the mandatory sentencing and apply lesser punishments. In 2002 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide on the constitutionality of mandatory sentencing as applied in two cases challenging California's Three Strikes law. In March 2003, in a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the right of states to imprison repeat felony offenders for lengthy sentences.

MANDATORY LIFE TERM UPHELD.

In June of 1991 the U.S. Supreme Court in Harmelin v. Michigan (501 US 957) upheld a Michigan law that imposed a mandatory life sentence without parole for possession of more than 650 grams of cocaine. Ronald Allen Harmelin's attorney argued that the mandatory sentence violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. He claimed the sentence was "grossly disproportionate" to the crime. Also, the state law did not permit the judge to use his own discretion to reduce a sentence based on other mitigating factors, such as the fact that Harmelin had no prior felony convictions.

In a sharply divided 5–4 decision, the majority declared that the Eighth Amendment does not require a sentencing judge to be given discretion to reduce a sentence. The Court ruled that "cruel and unusual" came from the English Declaration of Rights of 1689 and was intended to prevent sentences of being burned or drawn and quartered (the criminal's hands and feet were tied to horses, which then pulled the victim

to pieces). Although Harmelin's sentence was the second most severe penalty permitted by law (death is the most severe), the Court did not find it grossly inconsistent.

Driving under the Influence

In 2002, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), there were 17,419 alcohol-related traffic fatalities. In 1982 fatalities in alcohol-related crashes comprised 57 percent of all traffic fatalities, while the number had fallen to 41 percent in 2002. From 1997 to 2002 the alcohol-related fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled had fallen from .65 to .62. Some 310,000 people were injured in crashes in which law enforcement reported that alcohol was present. The rate of alcohol-related fatal crashes was more than three times higher at night (61 percent) than during the day (18 percent). For all crashes, the rate of alcohol involvement was four times as high at night (17 percent) than during the day (4 percent). The highest intoxication rates in fatal crashes in 2000 were recorded among drivers 21 to 24 years of age (27 percent), followed by drivers 25 to 34 years of age (24 percent), and 35 to 44 years of age (22 percent).

In 1983, the peak year for DUI arrests and fatalities, 33 states allowed persons under age 21 to purchase and sell alcoholic beverages. Since then, changes in the federal laws governing the way federal highway funds are distributed caused states to raise the legal drinking age to age 21. As of the year 2000, all states and the District of Columbia had a 21-year minimum drinking age. Observers link this change to the lowered incidence of DUI arrests and fatalities.

In addition, repeat offenders are now subject to four alternative sanctioning approaches to keep them from driving drunk: automobile impoundment, ignition interlock (ignitions that will not operate if the driver's breath shows alcohol), electronically monitored house arrest, and intensive probation supervision in which counseling targets an offender's drinking habits. Social attitudes toward drinking and driving also have changed through the 1980s and 1990s. By the end of the twentieth century, driving after several drinks was considered far less socially acceptable than just a generation earlier.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ROLE

The federal government has addressed the drug problem in two ways: reduction of supply through enforcement and interdiction, and reduction of demand through education, prevention, and treatment. According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, actual federal spending on drug control programs increased from $1.5 billion in 1981 to $12.1 billion in FY 2004. A total of $12.6 billion has been proposed for the 2005 budget year, an increase of 4.7 percent over 2004. The money is spent in three distinct areas: stopping drug use, healing drug users, and disrupting the market for drugs. (See Figure 8.6.) Among the programs meant to stop drug use are the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, an ongoing series of anti-drug advertising messages, and the Drug-Free Communities Program, which supports local anti-drug coalitions. To assist drug users in their efforts to quit using drugs, the Access to Recovery initiative provides vouchers for those wishing medical care. To disrupt the drug market, the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces focus law enforcement efforts on major drug trafficking organizations.

Drug control spending by individual departments in FY 2004 included: $3.5 billion for the Department of Health and Human Services; $1.7 billion for the Drug Enforcement Administration; and $1.1 billion for Customs and Border Protection. (See Table 8.10.) By function, the FY 2004 budget spent $5.4 billion on demand reduction efforts, $3.1 billion on domestic law enforcement, $2.5 billion on interdiction, and $1.1 billion on international efforts. (See Table 8.11.)

Federal drug seizures, as reported by five federal law enforcement agencies, increased for most types of drugs from 1989 to 2002. In 1989 about 1.3 million pounds of drugs were seized, compared to 2.6 million in 2002. A large rise in drug seizures occurred for heroin, more than doubling from 2,415 pounds in 1989 to 6,900 pounds seized in 2002. (See Table 8.12.) In FY 2002, drug interdiction efforts by the federal government accounted for the seizure of 225,122 pounds of cocaine, 2.4 million pounds of marijuana, and 193 pounds of hashish. Seizures of hashish in 2002 showed a marked decline from the amounts seized in some earlier years, perhaps due to less demand for the drug.