Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Special Report!  The Effectiveness of Ordinance 910-23 (The Cincinnati Anti-Marijuana Law)

Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

Photo courtesy of here.

Guest article by Paul Green, Chair, Hamilton County Libertarian Party.

It has been almost a year since Cincinnati City Council passed a law increasing the penalty for possession of marijuana.  Under the old law, possession of up to 100 grams carried a penalty of a $100 fine and no criminal record.  Under the new law, possession of 200 grams or less now carries a penalty of a $250 fine and up to 30 days in jail, plus a criminal record that must be reported when applying for a job or student loan.  A second offense results in up to $1,000 fine and up to 180 days in jail.

When this law was before the Council’s Law and Public Safety Committee in March of last year, I sent every committee member a copy of a 2005 study by Edward M. Shepard and Paul Blackley of the Economics Department of LeMoyne College.  They studied what effect increased marijuana penalties had on crime.  Using data gathered from 1300 counties and spanning a seven-year period, the authors concluded: “The results suggest that marijuana arrests are associated with increases in non-drug crime, including homicides [and] burglaries.”

The authors suggest several causes for the correlation between increased marijuana penalties and increased crime.  For instance, in noting the correlation between increased marijuana penalties and increases in burglaries, they wrote:  “[T]wo effects may be at work.  First, arrests for sales can be expected to disrupt supply and lead to price increases.  Users or other sellers may therefore rely upon burglary to cope with these increases.  Second, if the risks of selling become too great for some, they may switch to burglary as an alternative criminal activity…”

After intense lobbying, I was able to convince Council members Jeff Berding and Leslie Ghiz to amend the ordinance with a sunset clause, which means the law will expire on March 29th of this year unless renewed.

Despite the solid evidence that increasing marijuana penalties would increase crime and despite the fact that not one citizen testified in favor of the new law, six out of nine City Council members voted for the ordinance.  Vice Mayor Jim Tarbell and Council member David Crowley voted against it.  Council member Jeff Berding was not present for the vote.

Several reasons were cited for increasing the penalty for simple possession:

*It would reduce the number of people coming to Cincinnati from Kentucky and Indiana to buy drugs.

*It would allow police to do a more thorough search and reduce the number of guns on the street.

*It would allow police to arrest more drug dealers and reduce crime.

Taking these points one by one, how has the new law worked? (All statistics are from the Cincinnati Police Department.)

1.  Has it reduced the number of people coming from Kentucky and Indiana to buy drugs?

Despite what proponents of the new law had said, the number of people coming from Kentucky and Indiana to buy drugs is very small.  In 2005, 5406 tickets were written for marijuana possession. Less than 3% of those who were ticketed were from Kentucky or Indiana.

Percent of Tickets By State - 2005

Ohio—5,230 tickets (89.37% of total)
Kentucky—144 tickets (2.46% of total)
Indiana—14 tickets(0.24% of total)
Other (or unknown)—464 (7.93% of total)

The statistics for arrests under the new marijuana law, three facts emerge:

Percentage of Arrests by State - 2006

Ohio—2,583 tickets (84.83% of total)
Kentucky—59 tickets (1.94% of total)
Indiana—9 tickets (0.3% of total)
Other (or unknown)—394 tickets (12.94% of total)

The number of people coming from Kentucky to buy marijuana has been reduced 85 people, the number of people coming from Indiana to buy drugs had been reduced by 5 people, and the number of people coming from other states to buy drugs has been reduced by 5 – a total of 95 fewer people coming from other states to buy drugs.  By percentage, the number of people coming from Kentucky and Indiana has dropped from 2.7% to 1.97% - or a drop of .7%

2.  Has it reduce the number of guns on the street?

It is impossible to know how many illegal or unregistered guns are on the streets of Cincinnati at any one time.  There is no way to poll people on this issue:  “Pardon me, I’m conducting a survey.  Do you possess an illegal firearm?”

But we can look at the number of crimes committed with guns in 2005, before the law went into effect and compare that number with data for 2006.  The results:

Number of Guns Used in Crimes:

In 2005:  1,124
In 2006:  1,553
% change:  27.62

The number of guns used in crimes increased by 27.6% between 2005 and 2006.  (These numbers reflect all types of guns, including handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc.)

The most common weapon carried by drug dealers is a handgun.  Looking at the data for handguns only, we find:

Number of Handguns Used in Crimes

In 2005: 838
In 2006:  1,006
% change:  16.7

Instead of the intended effect of getting handguns off the street and reducing crimes committed with them, the number of crimes committed with a handgun actually increased by 16.7%

3. Has it reduced crime?

An analysis of arrests for Part 1 crime (serious offenses, usually felonies) crimes in 2005 and 2006 shows:

Crimes

Murder:  69 in 2005, 80 in 2006 (15.9% change)
Rape:  61 in 2005, 64 in 2006 (4.9% change)
Robbery:  717 in 2005, 1034 in 2006 (44.2% change)
Aggravated Assault:  685 in 2005, 673 in 2006 (-1.8% change)
Burglary:  833 in 2005, 889 in 2006 (6.7% change)
Larceny:  2,926 in 2005, 2,882 in 2006 (-1.5% change)
Auto Theft:  543 in 2005, 471 in 2006 (-13.3% change)
Total:  5,834 in 2005, 6,093 in 2006 (4.4% change)

Part 1 crimes have increased by 4.4%, including large increases in the murder and robbery rates.

Analysis

The new law has reduced the number of people coming from the targeted states to buy drugs.  But because the number of people coming from Kentucky and Indiana to buy drugs was small in the first place and only reduced slightly under the new law, one can conclude that such a small reduction would have little, if any, impact on reducing the demand for drugs, and therefore the number of drug dealers, in Cincinnati.

Ordinance 910-23 has clearly failed in the two most critical areas—reducing the number of guns on the street and the crimes committed with them, and reducing the amount of serious crime.  In fact, both crimes committed with a gun and Part 1 crimes have increased since the law went into effect.

At the full Council vote on this ordinance, several council members expressed skepticism about its potential effectiveness.  The history of the war on drugs shows that that skepticism was well-founded.

From the first anti-drug laws which went on the books around 1902 at the local and state level, to the criminalization of marijuana in 1937, to the increased penalties known as the “[Governor Nelson] Rockefeller-Era Drug Laws” in the 1970s, which included a maximum penalty of death for drug kingpins, to the mandatory minimum sentences of the 1980’s—no anti-drug law in the 105-year history of the war on drugs, no matter how punitive, has been successful in reducing crime or the sale, distribution and use of drugs.  In fact, as the penalties in 1970s and 1980s increased, so did the crime rate.

During the vote on this ordinance last year, two Council members made a promise.  Cecil Thomas said: “And I promise you, if the statistics do not show that this is helping a year from now, I’ll be the first to say it’s not working.” Leslie Ghiz said: “And I promise you…in twelve months I will beat Mr. Thomas to the punch.  If we do not have statistics it is working and it is curbing the drug crimes in this city, I will be the first to ask to have it repealed.” I called the offices of Mr. Thomas and Ms. Ghiz to ask for comments on their statements, but my calls were not returned.

On Tuesday, March 27, at 2:00 pm, the Cincinnati Police Department will be making a presentation on the effectiveness of ordinance 910-23 to the Law and Public Safety Committee (the committee responsible for renewing the ordinance before it goes to a full council vote) in Cincinnati City Council Chambers, Room 300, City Hall.  I urge you to attend this meeting and remind Mr. Thomas and Ms. Ghiz of their promises.

If you cannot attend next Tuesday’s meeting, please contact the members of Cincinnati City Council ( contact information here) and send this simple message:  “I live in Cincinnati, I vote in Cincinnati, and I do not want the increased marijuana penalty law renewed.”

• Share This Article!
Listen to this article

Socializer!

Username

Password

Auto-login on future visits

Show my name in the online users list

Forgot your password?

Register

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

Bearman says:
20 Mar 2007  at  04:52 pm | #

Paul, based on your information in 2005 there were 5852 tickets issued and in 2006 there were 3045.  While your data seemed right on for the other areas discussed, this is something that the supporters of the law will hold up and you didn’t address.  Between 2005 and 2006 there was a 48% DROP in the number of tickets issued.

Supporters of the law will say that more people are NOT buying drugs and therefore are not being ticketed, so the law is working. 

How do you respond to this?

hey pot heads says:
20 Mar 2007  at  05:32 pm | #

MARIJUANA IS A DRUG...DRUGS ARE BAD...GO TO JAIL HIPPIES!

Green Machine says:
20 Mar 2007  at  08:05 pm | #

Well said Mr. Green! Council is full of dopes on crime.

Dirty Democrat says:
20 Mar 2007  at  08:15 pm | #

Is it really asking too much that people keep and use their pot in the privacy of their own homes? All these laws really do is restrict people from smoking pot while walking down Main Street. Is that really asking too much? Smoking marijuana is not an entitlement.

Al Capone says:
20 Mar 2007  at  08:19 pm | #

hey pot heads, you are on crack if you think we should spend $55 a day to lock up people for a joint. Alcohol is a drug too. Imagine if we arrested people for alcohol. That worked out well in the past didn’t it?

says:
20 Mar 2007  at  08:21 pm | #

All these laws really do is restrict people from smoking pot while walking down Main Street.

Oh, for some reason I thought this law applied to all of Cincinnati, but it seems only relevant to Main Street and targeted areas of OTR.

Golly geez… I didn’t know you could make laws like that!

I also didn’t know that marijuana smokers could have their weed delivered to their homes!  What do you tip for that kind of service?

Curious says:
20 Mar 2007  at  08:26 pm | #

Under the new law, possession of 200 grams or less now carries a penalty of a $250 fine and up to 30 days in jail, plus a criminal record that must be reported when applying for a job or student loan.  A second offense results in up to $1,000 fine and up to 180 days in jail.

One thing is clear with this new law is one caught develops a criminal record. That’ll happen if one damages the neighbor’s fence with the lawn mower. Public intoxication. Public disturbance.

However, Paul Green doesn’t assemble facts & numbers on how many of these cases have the fines & costs remitted, along with zero jail time.

With the jail running at capacity, I seriously doubt the Judges are doing up to 180 days on second, third & fourth offenses, let alone 30 days on first-timers. They aren’t.

If one is going to attempt to shout down an Ordinance, one needs more supporting evidence than what is shown here. This is an awkward law, but there’s many communities who have welcomed it, as it has helped clean up streets in many neighborhoods.

IMHO, I don’t see Ghiz & Thomas pushing for a repeal of this Ordinance, even though gun violence has increased.

Speedy Delivery says:
20 Mar 2007  at  09:48 pm | #

I also didn’t know that marijuana smokers could have their weed delivered to their homes!  What do you tip for that kind of service?

Dean, this is becoming the standard, given the dealers have phones that do everything but wipe their behinds. Text your dealer of choice & it’s right at the door! It isn’t only weed that’s delivered.

This is very prevalent in “upscale” communities - Hyde Park, Mt. Lookout, etc., where the residents are so clueless they emphatically state there’s no drug dealing in their neighborhoods. ROFLMAO!

Have no idea what the tip criteria is. I’d guess it’s rather lucrative, given the price of gas & the buyer is looking at a handgun when opening the door.

Keep it inside says:
20 Mar 2007  at  09:56 pm | #

What’s so hard about doing it inside if people insist on doing it?  Jeez.

Dirty Democrats Are Hot says:
20 Mar 2007  at  10:03 pm | #

yeah i mean really if you look at the law it help pot smokers.  People used to get tickets for having pot on them, now they have to go to court, so police are less inclined to cite you for just marijuana posession.  It is however a great tool for the police to help fight harder crime… at least thats what i think.

Paul Green says:
21 Mar 2007  at  07:26 am | #

Bearman: “Supporters of the law will say that more people are NOT buying drugs and therefore are not being ticketed, so the law is working.”


There is no way to know how many people are buying marijuana, as the stats only reflect the numbers of people arrested for possession.  The lower number of arrests versus tickets might reflect that, given that the penalty has increased, people are being more discreet about smoking marijuana in public, and, given that it takes two hours (average time, according to police sources) to arrest and process someone through the justice center, police officers would rather be on the streets fighting real crime, rather than rousting someone for having a joint in their pocket.

Hey pot heads: “Marijuana is a drug - drugs are bad - go to jail hippies”

Alcohol and nicotine are also drugs.  According to the Centers for Disease Control, causes of death in the year 2000:

Tobacco: 435,000
Alcohol: 85,000
All illicit drugs: 17,000
Marijuana: 0

So why exactly are drugs “bad”?

Dirty Democrat: “Smoking marijuana is not an entitlement.”

Correct.  It is a _freedom_.  The Constitution gives the government no power to regulate what people put in their bodies.  As Thomas Jefferson said, “If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as the souls who live under tyranny.”

Curious:  “one caught develops a criminal record. That’ll happen if one damages the neighbor’s fence with the lawn mower,” and “but there’s many communities who have welcomed it, as it has helped clean up streets in many neighborhoods.”

I don’t equate, morally or legally, criminal damaging with marijuana possession.

And are people actually willing to accept more murders, rapes and robberies, as long as there are fewer dealers on the street?

Dirty Democrats Are Hot.  “It is however a great tool for the police to help fight harder crime”

If it is a great tool to fight harder crime, why have harder crimes increased?

says:
21 Mar 2007  at  08:26 am | #

Paul, based on your information in 2005 there were 5852 tickets issued and in 2006 there were 3045.  While your data seemed right on for the other areas discussed, this is something that the supporters of the law will hold up and you didn’t address.  Between 2005 and 2006 there was a 48% DROP in the number of tickets issued.

(from Bearman, #1)

I don’t know how Paul would answer this, but to me the answer may be that the new, stricter, marijuana ordinance is not enforced to the same extent as before.  If the penalty was just a ticket and a fine—like a parking ticket—then I suspect that a broad spectrum of people were ticketed and it didn’t take much time to write the ticket.  In 2006 people were still ticketed for the first few weeks, but then they were arrested.  That means handcuffed, put in the back of the police car, transported downtown, booked and fingerprinted, jailed, more paperwork, have a bond hearing, then if bond is demanded post the bond, released, and then come back for the court date.

First, this takes much, much longer than just writing a ticket.  Time constraints could partly explain the difference.  Instead of patroling the streets the arresting officer is occupied with paperwork and processes.

Second, as several people have stated, the stricter punishments are intended only for certain groups of people.  So from that basis, too, one would expect fewer people to be charged under the new ordinance.

says:
21 Mar 2007  at  09:07 am | #

Patton hit the nail on the head.

Unless told to the police will issue ticket, etc. based on the mood or agenda of the leadership.

I know of people that had outstanding warrants from Cincinnati and stopped in the suburbs only to have a quick verbal warning because the cop didn’t want to do Cincinnati’s dirty work. They actually were sent on their way without a citation for what they were stopped for. I don’t suggest that anyone find comfort in that, however.

So when one looks at the stats, remember that they can be skewed by the unofficial agenda of the police.

When you look at the absolute numbers of the foreigners that receive tickets, it is obvious this out-of-state issue has been overblown. It is closer to drive to OTR from Newport than it is from Norwood.

Green Machine says:
21 Mar 2007  at  11:45 am | #

Dirty Democrat, the “War on Drugs” is a complete failure! It’s more of a failure than the prohibition of alcohol was. What is the criteria for success here and when do we say enough is enough?

Even CC Todd Portune has said the judges tell him the marijuana ordinance is causing overcrowding in our jails and is inappropriate.

It’s simply a global war on the poor that was a preview of the so called “War on Terror”. It has put 2.2 million people are in jail. We have more people in jail than any other nation on the planet.

People already got a ticket and fine if they were caught smoking on the street. Selling drugs was already very illegal and carried a tougher penalty. This is just part of the scheme by the rich to gentrify OTR.

People on the left and the right agree, but that never stops the idiots that are supposed represent us from completey ignoring us. There will be a price for these polititcians to pay come November.

Anon says:
21 Mar 2007  at  01:32 pm | #

#8
Speedy Delivery says:
20 Mar 2007 at 09:48 pm | #

I also didn’t know that marijuana smokers could have their weed delivered to their homes!  What do you tip for that kind of service?

Dean, this is becoming the standard, given the dealers have phones that do everything but wipe their behinds. Text your dealer of choice & it’s right at the door! It isn’t only weed that’s delivered.

This is very prevalent in “upscale” communities - Hyde Park, Mt. Lookout, etc., where the residents are so clueless they emphatically state there’s no drug dealing in their neighborhoods. ROFLMAO!

If what you say is true, that only makes the “Marijuana Law” even more unfair. It’s not ok to target poor black folks in OTR for the same crimes white folks get completely away with in Hyde Park, Mt. Lookout, etc. Maybe if the police spent as much or more time going after white folks, then maybe they’d find more to bust in those areas. Problem is, they aren’t even looking.

What racist bs.

Quim says:
21 Mar 2007  at  02:53 pm | #

The difference between deliveries & street dealing is that the dealers in OTR crowd the sidewalks and make it difficult to get to the people who pay rent for their businesses.
It’s not racist or classist.
It’s supporting the businesses that pay taxes.
If dope were legal, it would be sold in the suburban malls & the trade in poor black urban neighborhoods would disappear.
That being said the marijana ordinance is wrongheaded but since the city’s hands are tied by more wrongheaded federal policy they have to just keep thinking wronger and wronger to make things work.
If more people in municipal government stood up to the feds, like Mr Crowley, they might figure it out.

says:
21 Mar 2007  at  02:57 pm | #

I have never had trouble getting inside an OTR business because of throngs of people smoking and selling pot in front of a door.  Please tell me where that is happening so I can go see for myself.

Unfair says:
21 Mar 2007  at  04:07 pm | #

actually, locking up the black dealer for dealing, while only giving a ticket to the generally white suburban buyer, may be the most racially discriminatory situation of all. Seems like both ends of the transaction should be treated the same.  Seems like whites only get mad when they get in trouble for possession-could care less if black get busted for selling it to them.

David E. Gallaher says:
21 Mar 2007  at  07:20 pm | #

Recall a few years ago when Rummie said there were just a few “deadenders” remaining to be mopped up in Iraq?
Well, on this thread there are still a few deadenders who think the War on Drugs can be “won.” Hopefully these deandenders will keep dwindling in number, unlike Rummie’s “deadenders.”
Are the War on Drugs deadenders here also the deadenders of the War on Terror?  If so, let’s take up a collection to get them into rehab.

Imagine how much energy and freedom would be released if US citizens could lose their obsession with wars!

says:
21 Mar 2007  at  07:49 pm | #

wasn’t city council supposed to vote on extending the marijuana law today? What happened?

Quim says:
21 Mar 2007  at  08:18 pm | #

"I have never had trouble getting inside an OTR business because of throngs of people smoking and selling pot in front of a door.  Please tell me where that is happening so I can go see for myself.”

Vine st 1400 - 1700

It’s not a big deal for a socially liberal minded single guy like you or me, but for a family or a little old lady or an attractive young lady, it is.

Anon says:
21 Mar 2007  at  08:25 pm | #

Note to Dieter: it’s next week.


Maybe if the police spent as much or more time going after white folks, then maybe they’d find more to bust in those areas. Problem is, they aren’t even looking.

Oh good grief. Anon 1:32, Speedy Delivery found out about door to door service from the police in those upscale areas. And you know for sure, proof positive, that the whiteys aren’t being reeled in & before the Judge the next day.

If it makes you feel any better, in the community where I live, there’s more whiteys reeled in, before the Judge & sentenced to time than others, including blacks. And the whiteys are involved not only in weed, but crack, meth, & lots of heroin these days.

says:
22 Mar 2007  at  07:32 am | #

Quim, I am not single!  I am a husband and a father, thank you very much!

Quim says:
22 Mar 2007  at  08:02 am | #

I meant when you are out alone as opposed to when you are out with the wife & kids.
I know you are married and have at least one kid.
I imagine they spend a lot of time weeping.


Anona says:
22 Mar 2007  at  08:16 am | #

The political posturing on this issue is beyond belief. To pass an ordinance that is used as an excuse to violate search and seisure protections granted under the Constitution is unlawful. To use this tool to do more thorough searches is against every citizen and has the wrong intent. If they want to search a suspect then get a warrant and do the search according to law as it is outlined in the Constitution. We The People have a duty to limit the intrusion of government into our lives. Every one of these attempts to limit our Liberty is an attack against the people and are treasonous acts against the sovereign(A nation’s ruler or head of state usually by hereditary right). We The People are the deciders(rulers) in this Nation and our power has been eroded by enemies from within. The public servants swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, and they lied and are lying. The authors and supporters of this illegal ordinance will be held to account for their crimes against the people.

says:
22 Mar 2007  at  09:24 am | #

Anona is so correct!

These politician-facists and bureaucrat-fascists must be outed for what they are. They hide behind the color of law and deprive citizens of rights that have been paid for over and over by the lives and limbs of our forebearers. These fascists make a mockery of the sacrifices of these heroes that fought for our liberties. Mere execution is too good for those that would subject our fellow citizens to the years of torture that is experienced when these fascists extract the inalienable rights, through slow and constant encroachment, that we all are entitled.

Anona is correct in pointing out that it is our duty to limit these intrusions into our lives if we wish to remain free and I am not the word “remain” is still appropriate in this society anymore. The authors and supporters of the ordinace will not be held accountable unless some among us make the necessary responses. But remember, they have the guns for now and consequently there needs to be at least two sectors to the opposition of these fascist: one to enlighten the masses and another to effect the opposition.

Thomas Jefferson said that the blood of these tyrants are the natural manure for liberty! The message is timeless.

Mary Jane says:
22 Mar 2007  at  11:58 am | #

Hey Quim, why are you telling us and not the cops?

Why do you think the cops aren’t arresting them? According to you it’s so obvious. Somebodies full of shit around here. Selling pot has been illegal since at least 1937. We don’t need new laws just new leadership at city hall and CPD.

Nate Livingston says:
22 Mar 2007  at  12:16 pm | #

Quim

It’s not a big deal for a socially liberal minded single guy like you or me, but for a family or a little old lady or an attractive young lady, it is.

I’m down on that part of Vine Street nearly everyday and I see plenty of families, little old ladies, and attractive young ladies freely entering businesses. I may be wrong, but it seems like you may be a punk who thinks white families, little old white ladies, and attractive young white girls are afraid to go downtown because they fear the Black people standing on the street.

says:
22 Mar 2007  at  08:09 pm | #

Nate
Is that where you go to buy drugs?  Did I say that right?  I just want to play the role you expect; and since I’m white, according to you I’m supposed to believe that that all blacks are on drugs, are whores or pimps, or drug dealers, or killers, ect....

JSL says:
24 Mar 2007  at  01:28 pm | #

IF THE JAIL IS SO OVERCROWDED AND THE JUSTIC CENTER IS HAVING TO RELEASE BAD “PRISONERS” BECAUSE OF IT WHY MAKE THE J.C. MORE FULLER THAN IT ALWAYS WAS BEFORE AND NOW!!!!!

JAMES L.

Adam Gregory says:
25 Mar 2007  at  10:53 pm | #

Whether you agree with this ordinance or not, it’s time to show city council how you feel about it. Tuesday March 27th at City Hall at 1:30pm Citizens for a Safer Cincinnati will be holding a rally and discussion on the Marijuana Ordinance. Come out and be heard.

Tom says:
26 Mar 2007  at  07:44 pm | #

Police in Cincinnati refused to uphold the law in Over-the-Rhine on Vine Street so long as marijuana was decriminalized in our city. 
When City Ordinance 910-23 went into effect they were encouraged to uphold the law with such vigor, including issuing jay-walking tickets and tickets for spitting on the side walk.
I thought they swore to uphold the law before serving.  Enforcing the law as it had been for the thirty years previous would have prevented Vine Street from turning into the bedlam that was allowed.
However, a police officer told the Enquirer that police don’t want to arrest people selling marijuana in broad daylight on Vine Street because possession of marijuana is decriminalized.
Well, the voters were not willing to pay $1.00 per $400 purchases that they spent in order to build a jail to fill with pot smokers.
Let’s go back to sanity and expect our police to uphold the law. This is the cure for what ails our city.  The council needs to repeal City Ordinance 910-23.

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

<b>

<i>

<u>

quote

code

@

<a>

Close Tags

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: