

Why NY’s move to decriminalize marijuana is rational

On Monday, June 4, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly and the city’s five district attorneys announced their support of Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s proposal to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana in public view.

Cuomo touted his proposal as a matter of racial justice, noting that police “were wasting time, resources and goodwill making tens of thousands of unnecessary arrests,” disproportionately targeting blacks and Latinos.

The facts support Cuomo. In 2011, the New York Police Department arrested 50,684 people for low-level marijuana offenses, making the Big Apple the “Marijuana Arrest Capital of the World.” Almost 70 percent of those arrested were younger than 30, and 84 percent were black or Latino. Only 12 percent were white. Figures for 2010 were almost identical. For the first 10 years (2002-2011) of  Bloomberg’s tenure as mayor, the aggregate percentages were 87 percent to 11 percent. This despite the fact that research has long shown that whites use marijuana at approximately the same rates as blacks and Latinos.

A key detail in the proposal is decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana “in public view.” Simple marijuana possession was decriminalized in New York 35 years ago by the Marijuana Reform Act of 1977, which made possession of 25 grams or less of marijuana — enough for approximately 25 joints —  a “violation” similar to a traffic ticket; the first offense carried a maximum penalty of a $100 fine, not arrest and jail. But smoking in public or having marijuana “open to public view” was made a criminal offense, a misdemeanor, subject to arrest and jail.

From 1981 to 1995, there were nearly 34,000 arrests for marijuana possession in New York City. Then, in 1996, Mayor Rudy Giuliani directed police to arrest people in possession of marijuana for having marijuana visible in public. That emphasis continued under Bloomberg. The result was dramatic. From 1996 to 2010, there were almost 540,000 arrests for marijuana possession in New York City — more than 16 times as many as during the previous 14 years.

There is no plausible reason to believe that marijuana use skyrocketed to a similar extent, or that smoking pot openly or brazenly brandishing one’s stash suddenly became fashionable. What happens is that when police stop and question someone — under the controversial “stop and frisk” rules so despised by blacks and Latinos — they might say, “Empty your pockets” or “Open your bag.” Either unaware of the implications or not wanting to cross the police, most people comply. If they pull marijuana from a pocket or show it in an open purse, it then becomes “in public view” and a crime, potentially saddling that person, typically a young person, with a criminal record that will stick to them for the rest of their lives. Even if the charge is dismissed, the person is booked, fingerprinted and entered into the records of the criminal justice system. Police defend the practice as a way of spotting potential criminals. Critics claim that fewer than half of those arrested in this manner have a prior criminal record, but are thereafter more vulnerable to suspicion and additional arrests, unlike their white counterparts — or like Bloomberg, who has openly acknowledged that he has smoked pot: “You bet I did. And I enjoyed it.”

A recent report by the Drug Policy Alliance concluded that arresting, prosecuting and jailing low-level offenders in this way costs an estimated $75 million annually. In addition, while police officers haul offenders off to book them, often drawing overtime pay in the process, they leave their beats unprotected from more serious crime and place unnecessary burdens on courts, jails and other parts of the criminal justice apparatus. (Note that Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos has made a similar argument in defending her controversial practice of not prosecuting people found with trace amounts of a controlled substance, such as residue on a crack pipe. Although her decision has been supported by criminal court judges and by the Houston Police Department chief and key assistants, Lykos was bitterly criticized by police officers unions.)

Cuomo has acted rationally, justly and compassionately in setting forth this proposal. Bloomberg, Kelly and the New York City district attorneys, though late in correcting a harmful policy, have lent important support to a Democratic chief executive faced with a Republican state legislature.

William Martin leads the Baker Institute Drug Policy Program and is the Harry and Hazel Chavanne Senior Fellow for Religion and Public Policy.

Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy