The War On Drugs Must Be Stopped Because...

Table of Contents

It Helps Fuel the Prison-Industrial Complex

It Destroys Families by Adversely Impacting Women and Children

It's Racist, Disproportionately Affecting Blacks and Other Minorities

It Wastes Resources Needed for Social Programs, including Drug Treatment

Research Resources

Jefferson County Arrest Figures by Race

It Helps Fuel the Prison-Industrial Complex

• At yearend 2000, the US had 2,072,686 persons behind bars. The vast majority, 1,240,000, were non-violent offenders. Of these, 458,000 are in prison for drug offenses. One out of every 142 US residents are in prison or jail.
• The overall US incarceration rate is six times that of it's nearest Western competitors. The incarceration rate was 699 inmates per 100,000 residents in 2000 (up from 458 in 1990). All the major Western European nation's rates were at or below 100 per 100,000.
• On Dec. 31, 2000, State prisons were operating between full capacity and 15% above capacity, while Federal prisons were 31% above capacity
• The growth of drug commitments and other non-violent offenders disproportionately contributed to the expanding prison population. From 1980 to 1997, the number of violent offenders sentenced to State prison nearly doubled (+82%), the number of non-violent offenders tripled (+207%), while the number of drug offenders increased 11-fold (+1040%)(see Figure 1).

Figure 1: From 1980-1997 the number of people entering prison for violent offenses doubled, while non-violent offenses tripled and drug offenses increased 11-fold

Graph source: Justice Policy Institute

• In 1988, for the first time, the number of drug offenders being sent to State prisons exceeded the number of violent offenders being sent to prison, and has exceeded it every year since (see Figure 2).
• Prison sentences for drug offenses constitute the largest group of Federal inmates, 61% in 1999, up from 53% in 1990.

Figure 2: Every year since 1989 the number of people sent to State prison for drug offenses has exceeded the number of people sent toState prison for violent offenses

Graph source: Justice Policy Institute

It Destroys Families by Adversely Impacting Women and Children

• The Supreme Court upheld HUD's "one-strike and you're out" law, by which entire families may be evicted from public housing when one member is caught abusing drugs, even when other members either knew nothing about the drug abuse or did everything possible to prevent it, and the abuse did not occur on public housing authority property.
• Since 1990, the number of male prisoners grew by 77%, while the number of female prisoners increased by 108%.
• In 2000, 91,612 women were in State or Federal prison.
• Women are the fastest growing and least violent segment of prison and jail populations; 85.1% of female inmates are behind bars for non-violent offenses (see Figure 3).
• From 1986 (the year mandatory sentencing was enacted) to 1996, the number of women sentenced to State prison for drug crimes increased 10-fold (from around 2,370 to 23,700) and has been the main factor in the increase in the imprisonment of women.

Figure 3: Women are the fastest growing, least violent prisoners

Chart source: Justice Policy Institute

• Approximately two-thirds of imprisoned women in the US have children under the age of 18.
• 2.8% of all children under the age of 18 have one parent behind bars-a total of 1,941,796 kids.
• The number of youths behind bars also grew from 93,732 in 1990 to 108,965 at the end of 2000.

It's Racist, Disproportionately Affecting Blacks and Other Minorities

• At yearend 2000, more than 46% of sentenced inmates were black males, while blacks make up 13% of the total US population. Nearly one in 10 black males ages 25 to 29 was imprisoned (see Figure 4).
• Among the more than 1.3 million sentenced inmates at the end 2000, 428,300 were black males age 20 to 39. At yearend 2000, 9.7% of black males 25 to 29 were in prison, compared to 2.9% of Hispanic males and only 1.1% of white males in the same age group.

Figure 4: In 1997, 9% of the black population in the U.S. was under some form of correctional supervision compared to 2% of the white population

Graph source: Bureau of Justice Statistics

• While the percentage of current drug users who are black (16.9%) is not significantly higher than the black percentage of the overall population (13%), they represent a disproportionate percentage of drug arrests. In addition, the black percentage of drug arrests rose sharply, while that for whites actually decreased (see Figure 5).
• The increasing number of drug offenses accounted for 27% of the total growth among black inmates, 15% of the growth among Hispanic inmates, and 14% of the growth among white inmates.

Figure 5: Comparison of drug use and arrests by race

Chart source: Human Rights Watch

• Nationwide, black men are sent to prison on drug charges at 13 times the rate of white men. In Kentucky, this black/white ratio is 20 to 1.
• Nationally, the percent increase in the rate of incarceration for drug offenses between 1986 and 1996 was 539% for young blacks compared to 90% for young whites (see Figure 6).
• In 1986, young blacks were incarcerated at a rate of 80 per 100,000, while young whites were incarcerated at a rate of 16 per 100,000. In 1996, the young white rate doubled to 30 per 100,000, but the young black rate had grown nearly six and one-half times to 511 per 100,000.

Figure 6:

Graph source: Justice Policy Institute

It Wastes Resources Needed for Social Programs, including Drug Treatment

• In 1999, the US spent over $146.5 billion on the Federal, State, and Local justice systems (see Figure 7).
• States spent $32.5 billion on Corrections alone in 1997. To compare, states spent only $22.2 billion on cash assistance to the poor.
• It costs approximately $8.6 billion a year to keep drug offenders behind bars.
• A Rand Corporation study found that additional law enforcement efforts cost 15 times as much as treatment to achieve the same reduction in societal costs, while every additional dollar invested in substance abuse treatment saves $7.46 in societal costs (societal costs include crime, violence, loss of productivity, etc.).
• In 1997, treatment costs ranged from a low of $1,800 per client to a high of $6,800 per client. To compare, the average cost of incarceration in 1999 was $26,134 per inmate.
• A recent study by researchers at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Has indicated that 48% of the need for drug treatment, not including alcohol abuse, is unmet in the United States, resulting in long waiting lists for the available treatment programs.
• Treatment decreased welfare use by 10.7% and increased employment by 18.7% after one year, according to the 1996 National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study by the Center for Substance and Treatment.

Figure 7: Direct expenditure for each of the major criminal justice functions (police, corrections, judicial) has been increasing

Graph source: Bureau of Justice Statistics

Beck, Allen J., Ph.D and Paige M. Harrison. Prisoners in 2000. (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, August 2001). (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/p00.htm).

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Correctional Populations in the United States, 1997. (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, November 2000). (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cpus97.htm).

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Key Facts at a Glance. (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/).

Common Sense for Drug Policy. Common Sense for Drug Policy Presents the Facts. (www.drugwarfacts.org or www.csdp.org/).

Greene, Judith and Vincent Schiraldi. Cutting Correctly: New Prison Policies for Times of Fiscal Crisis. (San Francisco and Washington D.C.: Justice Policy Institute, February 2002). (www.cjcj.org/pdf/cut_cor.pdf).

Human Rights Watch. Punishment and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs. (www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/).

Schiraldi, Vincent, Barry Holman and Phillip Beatty. Poor Prescription: The Costs of Imprisoning Drug Offenders in the United States. (San Francisco and Washington, D.C.: Justice Policy Institute, July 2000). (www.cjcj.org/pubs/poor/pp.html).

16, 846 (35%) of the people arrested in Jefferson County were arrested for drug and alcohol-related crimes. Only fraud crime comes close to drugs and alcohol-related arrests. 7,736 people were arrested for fraud in 1999. Source: Kentucky State Police "Crime in Kentucky: 1999 Crime Report" http://www.kentuckystatepolice.org/pdf/cik99.pdf

Louisville/Jefferson County Arrests - 2001 by Race and Type (Drug, Alcohol, Violent)

Blacks are disproportionately arrested for drug and violent crime offenses. In Jefferson County, they are 19.3% of the population, but make up 40.6% of drug arrests. Whites are 79% of the population, but only make up 56.6 of the drug arrests. Yet whites use and sell more drugs than blacks.

In 2001, 11,798 individuals were arrested on 13,683 occasions for a total of 18,148 violent crime-related offenses. Juveniles accounted for approximately 9.9% of these total numbers. Included in the total numbers were 1,309 rearrested at least once during the year.

In 2001, 12,399 individuals were arrested on 14,271 occasions for a total of 15,272 alcohol-related offenses. Juveniles accounted for approximately 1.0% of these total numbers. Included in the total numbers were 1,208 individuals who were rearrested at least once during the year.

In 2001, 10,195 individuals were arrested on 11,562 occasions for a total of 17,532 drug-related offenses. Juveniles accounted for approximately 3.8% of these total numbers. Included in the total numbers were 1,038 individuals rearrested at least once during the year.

Percentage of arrests by race in Jefferson County

All statistics from the "Crime Commission Annual Report Jefferson County 2001"

Drug Court and drug rehabilitation must be available on demand

• The city must aggressively lobby the state to reallocate funding from law enforcement to rehabilitation.
• The county prosecutors must put increased emphasis on drug court and not incarceration.
• The city must aggressively lobby the state to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug crimes.
• There must be more home incarceration for non-violent crimes that are drug or economically oriented.
• There must be fully funded decentralized, neighborhood-based drug rehabilitation programs.