If the present drug laws are to be meaningful, they must be enforced. To this end, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) has been given substantial power to enforce present drug laws. Most states or local governments have given similar powers to the police or special narcotics-units. In the literature on the enforcement of drug laws, one is struck by the apparent contradictions between what police officials claim they do and what the arrest statistics appear to show policemen doing.

Certain claims about the enforcement of present drug laws support what can be called the "impartial theory" of police behavior. This theory holds that the police apprehend persons who are the most frequent or serious offenders of the drug laws. For example, John Ingersoll, Director of the BNDD, states:

The most that law enforcement can do ... is to raise its sights and apply its major efforts against the proselytizers, against the distributors, against the smugglers, and against the sources of supply both nationally and internationally. We can train our police better, improve our evidence gathering responsibilities, enforce the laws where the greatest impact will result, and strive to cut off the various sources.1

Ingersoll suggests that the police may not be particularly efficient in enforcing drug laws on the entire drug-using population. However, he also indicates that no factors other than the possession or sale of drugs will significantly influence police decisions of whom to apprehend on drug charges.

A contrary theory, sociological in origin,2 may be called the "labeling theory." This theory holds that statuses (race, class, sex, and age) or social behaviors (political radicalism) and lifestyles ("hippies") not directly linked to drug use play an important, if not the most important, role in determining why persons are apprehended by police for drug-related violations. Although this theory is more complex than is indicated here, the central assertion of the "labeling theory" is that some persons are unfairly subjected to police surveillance and arrested for drugs because they possess characteristics that are associated with, but not directly relevant to, drug use and sale.

How do the police really enforce drug laws? In support of the impartial theory, statistics issued by the BNDD and Customs Bureau show that their agents arrest large marihuana dealers and narcotics distributors; half of the marihuana-only seizures made by BNDD agents are for five or more kilograms.3 But at the local level, analysis of arrest data in California and across the United States indicates that less that 15% of marihuana arrestees possess more than 30 grams (about an ounce) and less than 10% of all arrestees are charged with drug sale.4

In support of the labeling theory, a recent national study shows that about 70% of all marihuana arrestees have no previous arrest record and are frequently contacted in an automobile. Furthermore, almost no one over 30 years old and few persons older than 25 are ever arrested; male arrestees outnumber females by 3 or 5 to 1.$ Also relevant is the concern of political radicals and the hippie or "street" community that police are overly eager to arrest them on drug charges when it is really their beliefs and life style that the police find objectionable. This evidence suggests that, on the state and local level, the "drug pusher" is seldom apprehended while many low-level users are being arrested for possession offenses, possibly because they have been "labeled" as drug users by police on the basis of other criteria.

Therefore, two central questions emerge: Are police "efficient" in enforcing present drug laws? Are the police "fair" in enforcing laws in the sense that they apprehend the heaviest users and/or sellers, or are they influenced by other criteria? Police officials assume that they are being fair and reasonably efficient; the labeling theory indicates that police tactics are biased.

To determine the efficiency and fairness of drug law enforcement, seven questions must be considered: (1) How many students have ever engaged in the illegal activities of drug use or sale? (2) How many persons are stopped, but not arrested, as suspects for these drug-related activities? (3) How many are actually arrested and prosecuted for such acts? (4) Are nondrug users or irregular users arrested for drug violations? (5) Are those who regularly sell and/or use drugs most likely to be arrested? (6) Are offenders arrested because they sell? Or because they possess drugs? Or for both reasons? (7) Are students stopped or arrested for drug violations because police officers have "labeled" them as potential drug users on the basis of sex, age, race, political militancy, personal beliefs, personal life style, or involvement in nondrug violations?

In order to arrive at some conclusions about the efficiency with which police stop and/or arrest students for drug violations, it is necessary to compare drug-related charges with nondrug charges. Several studies of self-reported crime in diverse populations find differing levels of delinquency or crime. Such studies also find that the more serious the crime and the more frequently a person commits it, the greater the likelihood of the person being arrested for that violation.6 The most compelling data on crime in the United States were provided by the President's Commission on Law Enforcement in 1967. A national survey asked 10,000 Americans whether they had been victims of various crimes in the previous year. In 1965-1966, it found that for every 100,000 people about 360 had been victims of "crimes against persons," such as homicide, rape, robbery, and assault, and about 1760 had been victims of "crimes against property," such as burglary, larceny, and auto theft. This victim-reported crime was about two to three times higher than that reported by the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), with the exception of auto theft.'

Compared with such information about the level of victim-reported crime, information about the victimless crimes of homosexuality, gambling, abortion, and drug use in the nation's population is less compelling.8 The best information is about drug use; a survey conducted for the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse revealed that 15% of the nation's population had tried marihuana and a Gallup poll in November 1971 revealed that among the nation's college students, 51% have used marihuana and 18% have used hallucinogens.9 Although the use of these drugs is generally not against the law, the basic intent of laws against possession of these substances is to prevent use; most persons have to illegally possess these drugs in order to use them.

Since the police claim to ignore drug possession and, instead, concentrate upon drug selling and since drug selling is a felony, it is important to know something about drug sales. Unfortunately, there is much less information about drug selling than about drug use. Only a few select samples have been asked about selling activities. Goode indicates that 44% of his marihuana users have sold a drug, while Blum reports that a questionnaire distributed in a college dorm in 1968 found that 4% of the women and 20% of the men have sold marihuana." Although Blum has intensively studied drug sellers, his study provides no information about the proportion of sellers in the population. 11

To the best of the author's knowledge, the data presented in Chapter 5 provide the first information about the level of selling in a relatively representative, but biased, population of college students. It will be remembered that 22c/ had ever sold cannabis, 13% had ever sold a hard drug, and 6% had sold three or more hard drugs as well as cannabis. Since the President's Commission found that less than 2% of the population has ever been victims of any major crime investigated, 12 surely the felonious sale of drugs in the college sample is epidemic by comparison, as is possession and use of drugs.

One central question of the present chapter is how effectively law enforcement officials are dealing with this epidemic of drug-related violations in the college student sample. Comparison of drug-related arrests among college students with arrests of minority groups is instructive. It appears that drug users in black populations are very likely to be apprehended. Among St. Louis black males, Robins, Darvish, and Murphy report that 41% of the nondrug users had a nontraffic arrest, while 66% and 91%, respectively, of the juvenile marihuana users and users of other drugs were ever arrested. Furthermore, only 3% of the nondrug users and 3% of the marihuana-only users, but 61% of the users of other drugs, had been arrested for some drug offense." Glazer, Lander, and Abbott's study of a slum block in New York City indicates that 81% of the addicts, but only 5% of their nonaddict siblings, were ever arrested; while 49% of the addicts were incarcerated, only 3% of the nonaddict siblings served time in prison.14 These two studies indicate that police are likely to arrest black males who use drugs heavily, but do not arrest nondrug users on drug charges. How effective is the enforcement of drug laws among college students? Blum finds that less than 1% of the student body, but 40% of the drug sellers, have been arrested on drug charges. 15 Goode states that 7 of his 200 selected marihuana users were arrested on drug charges. On the other hand, California and national arrest data indicate a manyfold increase in arrests for marihuana charges during the 19605.16 Goode summarizes these seemingly contradictory findings:

More felons are arrested on marijuana charges than for any other felony, At the same time, a lower proportion of marijuana felonies and felons are detected and arrested than possibly for any other felony. And probably in no other crime is there so loose a relationship between seriousness and likelihood of arrest. ' '

Thus, because so many persons possess or sell cannabis, the arrest of even a small proportion constitutes a very large number of arrests.

Goode questions whether police fairly enforce the drug laws by indicating that most marihuana arrests occur for the following reasons: (1) Police stop automobiles for minor traffic violations, marihuana is observed or smelled, and the occupants are arrested on marihuana charges. (2) "Stop-and-frisk" procedures used by police to prevent crime accidently uncover drugs. (3) Police intentionally stop hippie-type youths because of their reputed involvement in marihuana. 18 Others maintain that police harass and arrest political radicals on
drug charges as a way of punishing political activities that are legal but offensive to the community. 19 Thus, a majority of marihuana arrests are "accidental" in the sense that the police do not have "probable cause" to suspect a person of a marihuana charge prior to stopping the person for some other reason. As proof of the accidental nature of drug arrests, Goode (citing Morton) notes that only 9% of the Los Angeles marihuana arrests are for sale of any amount, while the majority of arrests are for simple possession of marihuana. Furthermore, only 3% of the adult arrests and 7% of the juvenile arrests are the result of systematic police and undercover agents' work based upon suspicion of selling activity. 20 Thus, the data suggest that most drug arrests are not fair because the police do not have probable cause to suspect a person of drug possession or sale. Hence, this chapter will attempt to demonstrate whether police are effective and fair in stopping and/or arresting the students in our sample.

Asking students to report their contact with the police probably overreports the level of contact, since the police seldom record informal, nonarrest contacts with suspects. 21 Indeed, contact with police is much more likely to be remembered by the student than by the policeman. However, if the names of the students could be checked against police records, then student reports of arrest and police records for arrests should be closely matched. In studies of heroin addicts, the information provided by the addict's self-report of arrest is generally more accurate than the police records.22

In order to measure contact with the police, the study asked respondents:

The proportion (indicated in parentheses) of the total sample having contact with the law is greatest for traffic violations, "other" violations, and then for drugs. Only 4.1% of the total population has been stopped, arrested, or convicted for a drug violation. Slightly more students report arrest or conviction for "other" violations such as theft and property destruction (2.7%) than report arrests or convictions for drug violations (1.3%). The greatest number of arrests is for traffic violation (13.7%). Because the proportion of students arrested is so low, the terms "contact with" or "apprehended by" police will be used to refer to those who have been stopped and/or arrested by the police.

Graph 10.1 indicates that police do not randomly contact drug users. Rather, police are likely to contact students in accordance with their use of cannabis and involvement in selling drugs. Thus, less than 1% of the noncannabis users and less than 3% of the nondrug sellers have ever had any contact with police. In short, persons who are "innocent" are almost never contacted for drug-related sale or possession. However, the greater the involvement in selling, the greater the probability of having contact with police. More than a quarter (28%) of the heaviest drug sellers (three or more hard drugs) have had some contact, but less than 10% have been arrested.

Since these heavy sellers come closest to fitting the official conception of a pusher, it is important to determine whether the police are being effective in controlling such dealers. The evidence indicates that the vast majority (72%) of such heavy sellers have never been contacted, about a third (97428%) are ever arrested. This would seem to indicate that police are not very effective in arresting heavy drug sellers and much less effective in contacting buyers or sellers of marihuana.

However, police effectiveness is difficult to determine. The police are aware that many crimes never come to their attention and that arrests are made in less than half of the cases known to the police.23 To further evaluate police practiceg, this study will develop four indices that permit the determination of the effectiveness and fairness of police practices: the Crime, Auto Deviance, Political Militancy (developed in Chapter 8), and Hip Life Style (developed in Chapter 7) indices. The Crime Index classifies persons as "high" if they have engaged in two or more of these activities:

Taken a car for a ride without the owner's permission (5.4%)
While in High School, took things of little value (less than $10) from stores, work or school at five or more different times (12.5%)
Ever take things of some value (more than $10) from stores, work, or school (12%)
Purposefully destroy or damage property (break street lights, damage or move traffic signs, break into buildings and/or mess them up) (11%)

The Auto Deviance Index classifies persons as "high" if they have engaged in two or more of these activities:

Drive a car before obtaining a driver's license, but had no licensed driver with you (18%)
Drive faster than 80 m.p.h. (39%)
Participate in or attend a drag race (17%)

The Political Militancy and Hip Life Style indices attempt to measure life styles that might attract police attention and can help to determine the fairness of police procedures. Students were high on the Political Militancy Index if they agreed with two or more of these items:

Been held or arrested for political activities at school or elsewhere (2.2%) Sat-in or demonstrated in an office or building (21.0%) Participated in a demonstration where violence occurred (17.3%)

Persons were high on the Hip Life Style Index if they agreed with both of the following items:

Did you ever feel that other people or policemen would like to harass or intimidate you because of your appearance or your beliefs (35%)

Try to or actually attend a rock or folk music festival like Woodstock or Newport Jazz Festival (37%)

The bottom half of Graph 10.1 shows that persons who are not involved in auto deviance or crime are relatively unlikely to be contacted. Police are apparently quite effective in apprehending those highly involved in speeding and drag racing. Almost two-thirds of those high on the Auto Deviance Index are contacted by police, and half (31%/63%) of those contacted were arrested or given a ticket. Police effectiveness diminishes considerably among those highly involved in "other" crimes. Of those who are high on the Crime Index, 30% have ever had 'police contact for these activities and 40% (12%/30%) of those ever contacted were arrested. Thus when comparing both the proportion ever contacted and the proportion of arrests among those ever contacted, the police are found to be less effective in enforcing laws against drug selling and use than traffic laws and criminal laws.

On the other hand, it could also be argued that police are relatively effective in enforcing the victimless crime of drug use and sale. The victims of crimes against property or person are likely to report such crimes to police, but the drug buyer is not likely to report a seller to the police. However, police contact with sellers is similar to police contact for criminal behavior. Although data for other victimless crimes such as fornication, homosexuality, abortion, and gambling are not available, it would seem that persons who frequently commit these "crimes" are less likely to be contacted or arrested than drug sellers.

On the basis of the above evidence, the police appear to be about as effective (or ineffective) in enforcing the drug laws as the criminal laws. The enforcement of traffic laws demonstrates clearly how effective the police can be when a violation is highly visible and amenable to public surveillance techniques. If drug laws were as effectively enforced as traffic laws, the laws against selling and drug use might make some students reconsider what they are doing. But, as demonstrated in Chapter 5, the fear of arrest does not deter students from selling marihuana.

If the police are not particularly effective in enforcing the drug laws, are they "fair" in the sense that they apprehend those who are guilty of selling drugs? The data show that police are most likely to apprehend students because they sell drugs. If one considers the Frequency of Cannabis Use and Multiple Drug Use indices as good indicators of drug possession and the Illicit Marketing index as a measure of drug selling, one can determine whether police contact persons because they possess drugs, because they sell drugs, or for both reasons.

Graph 10.2 reveals that less than 5% of those who do not sell drugs have any contact with the police for drug charges regardless of how frequently they use marihuana. It is among those who sell hard drugs, especially three or more drugs, who are likely (about 28%) to have contact with the police for drug charges. The frequency with which these heavy sellers use cannabis is relatively unimportant in predicting their contact with the police on drug charges. This demonstrates that police contact persons because they suspect them of selling drugs, and not because of their possession of cannabis. Even low-level sellers (sell cannabis only) are unlikely (about 6%) to be apprehended by police.

The bottom half of Graph 10.2 shows that those using three or more hard drugs are 21% more likely than cannabis-only users to have contact with police for a drug violation. However, when drug dealing is held constant, this relationship is reduced to a third (APD = 7%). In addition, persons who confine their drug use to cannabis almost never (3% or less) have contact with the police, even though involved in selling it. But among those selling hard drugs, the number of drugs used increases somewhat the probability of contact with police. Nevertheless, the major reason that students are contacted for drug violations is drug selling. Police seem to concentrate mainly on drug selling; drug possession is far less important in attracting police interest. This does not mean that drug sellers are mainly arrested for selling; it is probable that most sellers are contacted for possession charges because it is easier for police to prove drug possession than sale. However, the findings suggest that if most persons are arrested on possession charges, they are probably guilty of selling drugs at one time in their life and may have sold several different drugs. Hence, police do generally arrest drug sellers.

A second question about police fairness suggests that police "label" potential arrestees, Do police depend upon visible indicators such as sex, race, political activity, hippie appearance, and auto arrests to make drug-related contacts with students? If it can be shown that these extraneous factors are decisive in police decisions to apprehend students for drug violations, then one might say that police have unfairly labeled certain characteristics that are not relevant to drug charges.

Graph 10.3 shows that traffic violations, political militancy, and living a hip life style are weakly (%C = 9% to 13%) related to police contact. Further, when the Illicit Marketing Index is held constant these weak differences are not greatly reduced (APDs = 7%). Hence, it appears that police perceptions of students' life styles are independently related to contact with police violations. However, the strongest factor determining drug-related contact with police, the student's actual involvement in drug dealing, is not altered (APDs of 22% to 31%) when traffic arrests, political militancy, or hip life style are held constant. In addition, less than 8% of the nondrug sellers have had any drug-related contact with the police, even though they have been arrested for traffic violations or appear hip. At the other extreme, students who have sold three or more hard drugs are somewhat less (about 20%) apt to have police contact if they have never been contacted on traffic charges, are relatively straight (not hip), or are nonmilitants. Goode's suggestion that police may not always have "probable cause" in the legal sense of the term to contact a person for drug violations is partially verified. 24 Among the heaviest drug sellers (3 or more hard drugs), those who have been stopped or arrested for traffic violations are likely (35%, 38%, respectively), as are the politically militant (37%), to have contact with police for drug violations.

Data presented in Table 26 (Appendix A) show that age, sex, race, and socioeconomic status (which the labeling theory suggests may be important factors in police arrest decisions) prove to be of little significance. In our college student posulation, we find almost no age or year-in-school differences in police contact or arrest; but the age range among college students is too small to make any definite conclusions. Contrary to the labeling theory, the higher the family income, the higher the probability of police contact for drug violations; those from high-income (more than $25,000 a year) families versus those from low-income (less than $7000) families are more likely (5.2% versus 2.2%) to report any contact and are more likely (1.3% versus 0.8%) to be arrested. College whites are somewhat more likely than college blacks (4.7% versus 2.8%) to report any drug-related contact, but they are slightly less likely to be arrested (1.3% versus 1.6%). We have also divided the white population according to sex. White females are somewhat less apt to be contacted (1.9%) and arrested (0.2%) for drug violations than white males (7.4% and 2.4%, respectively). In other words, white males are about four times (7.4% to 1.9%) more likely to be contacted and twelve times (2.4% to 0.2%) more likely to be arrested than white females.

As with life style variables, we have held constant involvement in drug selling. We find that heavy drug sellers are the most likely to be contacted and arrested, and that nonsellers are very unlikely to be arrested regardless of their age, year in college, or family income. However, it appears that college whites are somewhat more likely to be contacted and arrested for drug-related crimes than college blacks at each level of buying and selling drugs. Unfortunately, the number of blacks selling hard drugs (22) is so small that it makes meaningful comparisons impossible. More striking are sex differences in police contact among nonblacks. Although white females are less likely than white males to become heavily involved in drug selling, among the few females (39) who sell 3 or more hard drugs, a smaller proportion have contact with (15%) or are arrested (1.6%) by police for drug violations than their more numerous (147) male counterparts (32% contacted, 11% arrested). Sex differences emerge at all levels of drug buying and selling.

Thus, with the possible exception of male-female differences, the impartial theory better describes how police enforce drug laws on the New York college population than does the labeling theory. Although drug sellers may be the least likely to agree with this conclusion, their own behavior and report of contact with police demonstrate that the level of drug selling is the most important factor in police decisions to contact students for drug violations.

However, our data demonstrate that police do not abide completely by the impartial theory. The relationship between police contact for drug violations and sex, race, political militancy, arrests for traffic or other violations, or a "hip" life style is not completely eliminated when drug buying and selling is held constant. But the minor independent effect upon police contact of such "labeled" statuses and behaviors is due to two factors which are about equally important. First, police probably observe, with considerable accuracy, that white males, those arrested for traffic or other violations, political militants, and hippies are more likely to use and sell drugs. Perhaps police sometimes stop persons with such visible characteristics for suspicion of drug possession or sale, but if no evidence of such suspicion appears they will not arrest them. But, second, and of equal importance in understanding the relationships between these statuses and police contact, police tend to ignore drug sellers having characteristics associated with nondrug use and nonsale (white females, nonmilitants, nonhippie's, those not involved in traffic or other violations) until sufficient evidence is available to convince the police that such persons are indeed heavy sellers and worthy of legal sanctions. Thus, the evidence tends to suggest that the labeling theory should also be concerned with why police label some persons "innocent" until compelling evidence to the contrary is available.

Finally, labeling theory may not provide a particularly viable perspective. Certain life styles, which police could not possibly label, may, for unknown reasons, determine contact with police. For example, data in Table 26E (Appendix A) shows that the greater the number of premarital sex partners, the greater the contact with police. The strangest finding is that among those who have sold hard drugs but have never been involved in premarital sex (N = 65), 11% have had contact and 1.5% have been arrested for drug violations, a proportion much lower than among hard-drug sellers involved in premarital sex. Although we do not quite understand why this finding is true, it is certainly not because police "nonlabel" those abstaining from premarital sex.
Thus, our evidence indicates that decisions about whom to contact and arrest for drug violations is primarily determined by police suspicions about the person's level of drug selling and to a lesser extent by the number of drugs used, sex, and other behaviors or life styles. Despite the fact that police are relatively "fair" in enforcing drug laws among college students in New York City, the central fact is that the vast majority of heavy drug sellers and possessors never have any drug-related contact with the police and very small proportions are ever arrested.

Perhaps the labeling process becomes more important in determining guilt after a person is formally booked on drug-related charges, although such a hypothesis is not supported by the recent and high-quality data available.25

The implications of these findings are more important than they may seem at first glance. The National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse is recommending that Federal Law "decriminalize" the possession of "use" amounts of marihuana.26 While the sale of marihuana would remain illegal, penalties for small sales should be eliminated or restricted to fines. However, the present data suggest that persons who have only possessed marihuana are almost never subjected to legal sanctions and that those who sell cannabis only (small sales) are infrequently contacted by police. In the New York metropolitan area, the Schafer Commission's recommendations were the de facto drug laws in the spring of 1970.

However, the fact that persons who only possess (use or buy) cannabis are very unlikely to be contacted by police does not mean that the law criminalizing the possession of cannabis is ignored by police. It is probable that many, if not most, heavy sellers are arrested for marihuana possession rather than sale. The arrested person is generally guilty of the marihuana-possession charges pressed against him (at the minimum) and probably has been involved in several acts of selling.27 In the sample, forty-five persons had been arrested on drug charges; of these, only one had never bought or sold drugs (he had used marihuana), 15% had only bought cannabis, 80% had sold at least one hard drug, and 38% had sold cannabis and three other drugs. Unfortunately, persons were not asked to indicate ,whether they were arrested for marihuana possession or for other drug-related charges (sale, instruments, etc).

Nevertheless, the small number of persons contacted by police for drug-related offenses represents a substantial number of persons when projected to the total population (about 100,000) of the twenty colleges in the New York metropolitan area. If one assumes that the data in this study fairly approximate the actual drug use and selling rates and take into account the biased nature of the sample, then probably about 40,000 or 50,000 students are guilty of possession of marihuana and about 15,000 or 20,000 have sold cannabis and/or other drugs. About 4000 have had contact with the law, about 1000 have been arrested, and less than 500 have been convicted of some drug violation. This is a relatively large number of reasonably law-abiding persons entering the court system. It appears that the court system can survive, although the costs may be very high. 28

Does the enforcement of drug laws capture many college students who are guilty of using or selling drugs? The answer is no. This is especially true when police contact among drug users and sellers is compared to police contact and arrest of persons involved in auto violations or who have committed crimes against property. Furthermore, the heavy drug users in the college population are less likely to be subjected to drug arrests than Robin's (1970) black males in St. Louis. 29 (Of course, the students in the sample are not as old as these black men and less involved in heroin addiction, so they have not had as much opportunity to be arrested.)

Do police stop and/or arrest only whose who are guilty of drug law violations? The answer is yes. College students are stopped and/or arrested mainly because they are drug sellers; other factors such as sex, race, class, religiosity, criminality (data not presented), as well as militancy, auto violations, and hip appearance do not strongly affect this relationship. Thus, police appear to be fair in their contact with students suspected of selling drugs. If police "label" persons as likely sellers they also "nonlabel" other significant segments
of the student population.

The central question generated by this chapter is, Does the ineffective, but relatively fair, enforcement of present drug laws outweigh the considerable burden that it imposes upon our overworked court system and those students who are stigmatized as felons? The answer to this question depends more upon one's values than upon empirical evidence.

REFERENCES

1. National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, Technical Papers of the First Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Appendix II, Washington, D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office, p. 729. Two papers in this appendix are a must for understanding what kinds of persons are arrested and convicted for marihuana-related crimes. One paper 'deals with arrest data on the local level, while a second deals with federal arrest data. (Henceforth referred to as Schafer Report, Appendix II.)
2. Howard S. Becker, Outsiders, New York: Free Press, 1963, pp. 8-10, 121-134; Edwin M. Schur, Crimes Without Victims, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice- Hall, 1965, pp. 169-179; Harvey Marshall and Ross Purdy, "Hidden Deviance and the Labeling Approach: The Case for Drinking and Driving," Social Problems, 19 (Spring 1972) pp. 541-553.
3. Schafer Report, Appendix II, Ref. 1, p. 744.
4. Ibid., pp. 632, 656; Erich Goode, The Marijuana Smokers, New York: Basic Books, 1970, pp. 267-277. Goode depends heavily upon two other documents: State of California, Drug Arrests and Dispositions in California, 1967 (Sacramento: Department of Justice, Bureau of Criminal Statistics, 1968), and 1968 Drug Arrests in California, Advance Report (April 1969), pp. 4, 6; and Allan Morton, et al., "Marijuana Laws: An Empirical Study of Enforcement and Administration in Los Angeles County," U.C.L.A. Law Review, 15 (Sept. 1968), pp. 1499-1585. We have examined both sources; Goode adequately summarizes the important findings and develops various statistics derived from these sources that are not presented in the original sources. Thus, we will cite from Goode.
5. Schafer Report, Appendix II, Ref. 1, pp. 619-636.
6. Martin Gold, "Undetected Delinquent Behavior," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency (January 1966), 13, pp. 27-46. James F. Short and Fred L. Strodbeck, Group Process and Gang Delinquency, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965, pp. 77-101; for a good summary of this literature on self-reported crime and arrests, see Roger Hood and Richard Sparks, Key Issues in Criminology, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970, pp. 11-45.
7. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, "Crime in America." The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1967, pp. 17-46.
8. Edwin Schur, Crimes Without Victims. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1965, pp. 169-179.
9. Schafer Report, Appendix II, Ref. 1, p. 945; "Gallup Finds a Continued Rise in the Use of Marihuana and LSD on Campus," The New York Times, January 10, 1972, p. 16.
10. Erich Goode, Ref. 4, p. 251. Richard Blum et al., Students and Drugs, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969, P. 186.
11. Richard Blum, "Drug Pushers: A Collective Portrait," Transaction, July-Aug. 1971, pp. 18-21; The Dream Sellers, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1972.
12. President's Commission, Ref. 7.
13. Lee N. Robins, Harriet S. Darvish, and George E. Murphy, "The Long-Term Outcome for Adolescent Drug Users" In Joseph Zubin and Alfred Freedman, eds. The Psychopathology of Adolescence, New York: Grune and Stratton, 1970, p. 168.
14. Daniel Glater, Bernard Lander, and William Abbott, "Opiate Addicted and Non-Addicted Siblings in a Slum Area," Social Problems, 18 (Spring 1971), 514.
15. Blum, et al., Ref. 10, p. 154; and Ref. 11, p. 18.
16. Goode, Ref. 4, p. 276. Shafer Report, Ref. 1, pp. 736, 754.
17. Goode, Ref. 4, p. 275.
18. Ibid., pp. 270-277. Shafer Report, Ref. 1, pp. 628-642.
19. Jerry Rubin, a "yippie" leader, was arrested on marihuana possession charges for his political activities. Jerry Rubin, "The Yippies Are Going to Chicago," The Realist 82 (Sept. 1968), 1. Also see Playboy Panel (Feb. 1970), p. 54, about Leslie Fiedler, an English professor at Buffalo, who was arrested for "maintaining a premises" where marihuana is used. Playboy has become a major publication for those who are arrested on drug charges to try and gain public support. Almost every issue of Playboy carries a letter from a person imprisoned on marihuana or drug charges.
20. Goode, Ref. 4, p. 272. Schafer Report, Ref. 1, pp. 628-642.
21. Hood and Sparks, Ref. 6, pp. 66-79, deal with the problems of reliability, concealment, and exaggeration among self-reports of crimes and arrests.
22. Lee N. Robins and George E. Murphy, "Drug Use in a Normal Population of Young Negro Men," American Journal of Public Health, 57 (Sept. 1967), 1584-1585. John C. Ball, "Reliability and Validity of Interview Data Obtained from 59 Narcotic Addicts," American Journal of Sociology, 72 (May 1967), 650-654.
23. President's Commission, Ref. 7, pp. 25-35.
24. Goode, Ref. 4, p. 273.
25. Schafer Report, Ref. 1, pp. 647-650.
26. See the preliminary report of the Commission's findings in Fred P. Graham, "National Commission to Propose Legal Private Use of Marijuana," New York Times, Feb. 13, 1972. Shafer Report, Ref. 1, pp. 193-194.
27. Goode, Ref. 4, p. 277, says marijuana arresters "are almost certainly guilty of some marijuana-related crime, if not at that instance, then probably at some other time." Our findings exactly.
28. Ibid., pp. 278.282. Lester Grinspoon, Marihuana Reconsidered, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971, pp. 344.371. John Kaplan, Marijuana: The New
Prohibition, Cleveland: World Publishing, 1970, pp. 29-49. Interim Report of the Canadian Government's Commission of Inquiry, The Non-Medical Use of Drugs, Ottawa, Canada, Queen's Printer for Canada, 1970, pp. 378.403.
29. Robins, Darvish, and Murphy, Ref. 13, p. 168.