Strong drug enforcement in the United States is correlated with dramatic reductions in crime, drug use, and drug addiction rates. Historically, permissive enforcement policies brought record murder and crime rates, peak drug use levels, and increased the addict population.
Drug arrest rates are not an accurate measure of how tough the nation is on drugs. There are three times as many alcohol related arrests than drug arrests - is alcohol policy three times tougher than drug policy? If we legalize drugs, we may triple the number of drug arrests. To measure drug enforcement strength one must examine what happens to those arrested. A good method is to track the number of persons incarcerated for every thousand drug arrests. Periods of weak and strong drug policy can then be compared.
Permissive drug policy was an abject failure in the U.S. A drug criminal was four times more likely to serve prison time in 1960 than in 1980 and the incarceration rate plummeted 79%. This drug tolerant era brought a doubling of the murder rate, a 230% increase in burglaries, a ten fold increase in teen drug use, and a 900% rise in addiction rates. The peak years for teen drug use and murder were the same years that drug incarceration rates hit an all time low point.
From 1980-1997, the drug incarceration rate rose over fourfold and crime and drug use began a steady unprecedented decline. Murder rates fell by over 25%, burglary rates dropped 41%, teen drug use reduced by more than a third, and heavy cocaine and heroin use levels fell. With peak drug incarceration rates, many cities, such as New York, reached record low crime levels.
Increasing the odds of imprisonment for drugs helped lower crime and drug use rates because major drug offenders, traffickers, and repeat felons were targeted - not minor drug possessors. Urban drug defendants are more likely to be repeat criminals than violent or property offenders. The hard core drug felon often steals not just to buy drugs but also to pay bills and survive through a career of crime. Locking up career criminals is a very cost effective policy.
Over 95% of state prisoners are violent and repeat criminals. Under one-tenth of one per cent of inmates are non-violent, first time marijuana offenders. Most state drug prisoners are traffickers or repeat and/or violent offenders. A federal marijuana inmate was involved with 3.5 tons of the drug on average; a crack offender averaged 18,000 doses. Federal agencies have almost no jurisdiction over violent street crime; that is why most federal cases involve major cocaine and heroin drug traffickers.
Are we getting too tough? Drug prison sentences have held fairly steady the past five years and drug inmate growth is slowing. Studies show that prison growth is the result of increasing the odds of imprisonment for all criminals and not from longer sentences being served. Mandatory minimum sentences have not caused court backlogs or dramatically longer terms, but they may be in part responsible for the tremendous success demonstrated by lower crime rates. One is more likely to go to prison for a federal gambling offense than for drug possession -- and a tax law violator will serve more prison time!
Tougher drug policy also reduces addiction because the criminal justice system is the number one source of treatment referrals. President Clinton credits the justice system for saving his brother's life and many treatment centers would shut down, and addicts would die, if drug laws were repealed. In 1991, a quarter of a million inmates received their most recent drug treatment while in prison.
History indicates that increasing the odds of hard core drug criminals going to prison has been an extremely effective way to reduce violent and property crime and to lower addiction and drug use rates. The nation is still recuperating from twenty years of permissive drug policy. Current enforcement efforts must be sustained.
We may have found a good balance, and neither tougher nor weaker policy is called for. The real problem is that of the minor drug offender, who now often escapes any consequences at all. Zero tolerance through alternative sanctions must be applied, such as abstinence enforced through drug testing, fines, civil liability, loss of driving and other privileges, and treatment modalities to deter these users before they reach the hard core criminal stage.