BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2013-2014 Regular Session B
1
0
1
SB 1010 (Mitchell) 0
As Amended March 17, 2014
Hearing date: April 29, 2014
Health and Safety Code
JM:mc
POSSESSION OF COCAINE BASE TO SELL OR FURNISH
HISTORY
Source: Drug Policy Alliance; American Civil Liberties Union; A
New Way of Life; California Attorneys for Criminal
Justice; California Public Defenders Association;
California State Conference of the NAACP; Californians
for Safety & Justice; Courage Campaign; Ella Baker
Center; National Council for La Raza; William C.
Velázquez Institute; Friends Committee on Legislation
Prior Legislation: SB 1960 (Seymour) - Ch. 1044, Stats. 1986
SB 943 (Seymour) - Ch. 1174 Stats. 1987
Support: A New PATH; Advancement Project; Amity Foundation;
Asian American Drug Abuse Program (AADAP); California
Coalition for Women Prisoners; California Drug
Counseling, Inc.; Center for Living and Learning;
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice; CHIRLA;
Community Coalition Community Works West;
healthRIGHT360; Holman United Methodist Church;
Homeless Healthcare Los Angeles; Homies Unidos; Human
Rights Watch; Islamic Shura Council of Southern
California; Justice Not Jails; Los Angeles Centers for
Alcohol and Drug Abuse; Los Angeles Community Action
Network; Los Angeles Regional Reentry Partnership
(More)
SB 1010 (Mitchell)
PageB
(LARRP); Law Enforcement Against Prohibition; Legal
Services for Prisoners with Children; Los Angeles
Metropolitan Churches; National Association of Social
Workers; Women's Council, California Chapter; PICO
California; Progressive Christians Uniting; San
Fernando Recovery Center; SHIELDS for Families; Tarzana
Treatment Centers; The Sentencing Project; National
Employment Law Project; Freedom Riders Foundation; Hope
of the Valley Rescue Mission; Strawberry Creek Monthly
Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends; UC
Hastings Law Students for Sensible Drug Policy; FACTS
Education Fund; Fair Chance Project; Board of
Directors-San Diego Black Health Association Inc.;
Legal Scholars; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights;
Rubicon Programs; James S. Stiven, U.S. Magistrate
Judge (retired); Center on Policy Initiatives; Employee
Rights Center; San Diego Organizing Project; Pillars of
the Community; Center for Health Justice; Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Asian Americans
Advancing Justice - Asian law Caucus; Californians
United for a Responsible Budget; Homeboy Industries;
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office; The
Labor/Community Strategy Center; Alpha Project;
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety; numerous private
individuals
Opposition:California Police Chiefs Association; California
Narcotics Officers Association
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD POSSESSION OF COCAINE BASE FOR SALE CARRY THE SAME PENALTY AS
POSSESSION FOR SALE OF POWDER COCAINE?
(More)
SB 1010 (Mitchell)
PageC
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to provide that the penalty for
possession for sale<1> of cocaine base shall be the same as that
for possession for sale of cocaine hydrochloride - powder
cocaine.
Existing law provides penalties for the following conduct
involving controlled substances: possession, possession for
sale or distribution, sale or distribution, and manufacturing.
(Health & Saf. Code §§ 11350-11401.)
Existing law classifies controlled substances in five schedules,
with generally lesser restrictions and penalties from Schedule I
through V. Schedule I controlled substances are deemed to have
no accepted medical use and cannot be prescribed. Examples of
drugs in the California schedules drugs follow:
Heroin, LSD, cocaine base and marijuana are Schedule I
drugs.
Oxcycodone, cocaine,<2> methamphetamine, and codeine are
Schedule II drugs.
Barbituates (tranquilizers, anabolic steroids and
specified narcotic, pain medications are Schedule III
drugs.
Benzodiazepines (Valium) and phentermine (diet drug) are
Schedule IV drugs.
Specified narcotic pain medications with active
non-narcotic active ingredients are Schedule V drugs.
(Health & Saf. Code §§ 11054-11058.)
Existing California law , with the exception of a ban on the
---------------------------
<1> Possession of a drug for "sale" also includes circumstances
where the defendant intends to give away or otherwise provide
the drug. (Pen. Code §§ 11351 and11351.5.)
<2> Cocaine is still in limited use for ear, nose and throat
surgery because it is an effective topical anesthetic and
restricts blood flow, allowing the surgeon to see the surgical
location in areas of particularly abundant veins and blood flow.
.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2485453.
(More)
SB 1010 (Mitchell)
PageD
prescription of Schedule I drugs, does not explain the
differences among the schedules.
Existing federal law (21 U.S.C., Section 812 (b)) includes the
following explanations:
Schedule I controlled substances have no currently
accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,
have a high potential for abuse, and there is a lack of
accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance
under medical supervision. Schedule I drugs include but
are not limited to cannabis, heroin, GHB, and ecstasy.
Schedule II controlled substances have a currently
accepted medical use in treatment, a high potential for
abuse, which may lead to severe psychological or physical
dependence. Schedule II drugs include but are not limited
to Cocaine, Ritalin, oxycodone, morphine, and amphetamines.
Schedule III controlled substances have a currently
accepted medical use in treatment, a potential for abuse
that is less than that for Schedule I and II drugs, and
abuse may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or
high psychological dependence. Schedule III drugs include
but are not limited to anabolic steroids, prescriptions
that combine codeine or hydrocodone with aspirin or another
non-narcotic ingredient, ketamine, and testosterone.
Schedule IV drugs have a currently accepted medical use
in treatment, have a low potential for abuse relative to
the substances in Schedule III, and abuse may lead to
limited physical dependence or psychological dependence.
Schedule IV drugs include but are not limited to Xanax,
Librium, Valium, talking and Phenobarbital.
Schedule V drugs have a low potential for abuse, have a
currently accepted medical use in treatment, and abuse of
the drug may lead to limited physical dependence or
psychological dependence. Schedule V drugs include but are
not limited to narcotic drugs containing active medicinal
(More)
SB 1010 (Mitchell)
PageE
qualities other than those possessed by narcotic drugs
alone, such as cough suppressants containing small amounts
of codeine.
Existing law , as relevant to this bill, includes the following
penalties for conduct involving cocaine and cocaine base:
Simple possession (for personal use) of cocaine or
cocaine base: Felony, with a jail term (Pen. Code § 1170,
subd. (h)) of 16 months, 2 years or 3 years. (Health &
Saf. Code § 11350.)
Possession for sale of cocaine: Felony jail term of 2, 3
or 4 years. (Health & Saf. Code § 11351.)
Possession of cocaine base for sale - Felony jail term
of 3, 4 or 5 years. (Health & Saf. Code § 11351.5.)
Sale or distribution of cocaine or cocaine base: Felony
jail term of 3, 4 or 5 years. (Health & Saf. Code §
11352.)
Transportation for sale across noncontiguous counties of
cocaine or cocaine base: Felony jail term of 3, 6 or 9
years. (Health & Saf. Code § 11352(b).)
Existing law provides for seizure and forfeiture of a vehicle,
boat or airplane used as an instrumentality of drug commerce.
Specified provisions are triggered where the amount of cocaine
base involved in the offense weighed 14.25 grams (approximately
ounce) or more and where the amount of cocaine weighed 28.5
grams (1 ounce). (Health & Saf. Code § 11470, subd. (e.).)
Existing law provides that the court can only grant probation to
a person convicted of certain crimes if unusual circumstances
exist establishing that a grant of probation promotes justice.
The restriction applies to any case involving 14.25 grams or
more of cocaine base, or 57 grams or more of a substance
containing at least 5 grams of cocaine base. By comparison, the
restriction applies to any case involving 28.5 grams or more of
(More)
SB 1010 (Mitchell)
PageF
cocaine, or 57 grams or more of a substance containing cocaine.
(Pen. Code § 1203.073, subds. (b)(1) and (5).)
This bill would provide that the incarceration penalty for
possession for sale or distribution of cocaine base is a felony
jail term of two, three or four years - the penalty for
possession for sale of powder cocaine.
This bill would provide probation can only be granted to a
person convicted of possession for sale of 28.5 grams or more of
cocaine base, or 57 grams or more of a substance containing at
least 5 grams of cocaine base, if the court finds unusual
circumstances demonstrating that probation promotes justice.
This bill authorizes seizure and forfeiture of a vehicle, boat
or airplane used as an instrumentality of drug commerce
involving cocaine base weighing 28.5 grams or more, or 57 grams
or more of a substance containing at least 5 grams of cocaine
base
This bill includes legislative findings that powder cocaine and
cocaine base are two different forms of the same drug, each
producing the same effects when ingested and that imposing
higher penalties and greater forfeitures on persons convicted of
crimes involving cocaine base is unjustified.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
(More)
SB 1010 (Mitchell)
PageG
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy, known as "ROCA"
(which stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis
Aggravation"), the Committee held measures that created a new
felony, expanded the scope or penalty of an existing felony, or
otherwise increased the application of a felony in a manner
which could exacerbate the prison overcrowding crisis. Under
these principles, ROCA was applied as a content-neutral,
provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature did
not erode progress towards reducing prison overcrowding by
passing legislation, which would increase the prison population.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order requiring the state to reduce its prison
population to 137.5 percent of design capacity. The State
submitted that the, ". . . population in the State's 33 prisons
has been reduced by over 24,000 inmates since October 2011 when
public safety realignment went into effect, by more than 36,000
inmates compared to the 2008 population . . . , and by nearly
42,000 inmates since 2006 . . . ." Plaintiffs opposed the
state's motion, arguing that, "California prisons, which
currently average 150% of capacity, and reach as high as 185% of
capacity at one prison, continue to deliver health care that is
constitutionally deficient." In an order dated January 29,
2013, the federal court granted the state a six-month extension
to achieve the 137.5 % inmate population cap by December 31,
2013.
The Three-Judge Court then ordered, on April 11, 2013, the state
of California to "immediately take all steps necessary to comply
with this Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to
reduce overall prison population to 137.5% design capacity by
December 31, 2013." On September 16, 2013, the State asked the
Court to extend that deadline to December 31, 2016. In
response, the Court extended the deadline first to January 27,
2014 and then February 24, 2014, and ordered the parties to
enter into a meet-and-confer process to "explore how defendants
can comply with this Court's June 20, 2013 Order, including
(More)
SB 1010 (Mitchell)
PageH
means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or
accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to
the prison crowding problem."
The parties were not able to reach an agreement during the
meet-and-confer process. As a result, the Court ordered
briefing on the State's requested extension and, on February 10,
2014, issued an order extending the deadline to reduce the
in-state adult institution population to 137.5% design capacity
to February 28, 2016. The order requires the state to meet the
following interim and final population reduction benchmarks:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
If a benchmark is missed the Compliance Officer (a position
created by the February 10, 2016 order) can order the release of
inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark.
In a status report to the Court dated February 18, 2014, the
state reported that as of February 12, 2014, California's 33
prisons were at 144.3 percent capacity, with 117,686 inmates.
8,768 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
The ongoing prison overcrowding litigation indicates that prison
capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement
remain unresolved. While real gains in reducing the prison
population have been made, even greater reductions may be
required to meet the orders of the federal court. Therefore,
the Committee's consideration of ROCA bills -bills that may
impact the prison population - will be informed by the following
questions:
Whether a measure erodes realignment and impacts the
prison population;
Whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
(More)
SB 1010 (Mitchell)
PageI
Whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
Whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and,
Whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
SB 1010 will correct the groundless disparity in
sentencing, probation and asset forfeiture guidelines
for possession of crack cocaine for sale versus the
same crime involving powder cocaine that has resulted
in a pattern of racial discrimination in sentencing
and incarceration in California.
Crack and powder cocaine are two forms of the same
drug. Scientific reports, including a major study
published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association, demonstrate that they have essentially
identical effects on the human body. Powder cocaine
can be injected or snorted. Crack cocaine can be
injected or smoked, and is a product derived when
cocaine powder is processed with an alkali, typically
common baking soda. Gram for gram, there is less
active drug in crack cocaine than in powder cocaine.
Whatever their intended goal, disparate sentencing
guidelines for two forms of the same drug has resulted
in a pattern of institutional racism, with longer
prison sentences given to people of color who are more
likely than whites to be arrested and incarcerated for
cocaine base offenses compared to powder cocaine
(More)
SB 1010 (Mitchell)
PageJ
offenses, despite comparable rates of usage and sales
across racial and ethnic groups.
2. The Death of Basketball Star Len Bias after Cocaine use in
1986 and the Increase in Drug Penalties, Particularly for
Cocaine Base, that Followed
Len Bias was an extraordinarily gifted college basketball player
at the University of Maryland in the mid-1980s. Just a few days
after being selected by the Boston Celtics as the second player
in the 1986 NBA draft, Bias died after suffering a seizure when
ingesting cocaine with friends and teammates in a dorm room.
Media reports initially stated or speculated, and then repeated
as though confirmed, that Bias had used crack cocaine or
freebased cocaine and that he had never used cocaine before.<3>
The investigation of the incident and prosecutions related to
the incident indicate that Bias had used cocaine before -
perhaps introducing the drug to friends - and that cocaine had
been found in his leased car. His companions testified that
after Bias snorted the last of numerous lines of powder cocaine,
he stood up to go the bathroom, stumbled back on his bed and had
a seizure.
Len Bias' death sparked a nation-wide outcry about the
prevalence and dangers of cocaine use, especially the use of
crack cocaine in African-American communities. Congress very
quickly passed the Ant-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. The law was a
bi-partisan measure with the full support of Speaker Tip O'Neil,
a Bostonian. The law included very long mandatory minimum
sentences. The penalties for crack cocaine or cocaine base were
triggered when a case involved much less of the drug (1/100th)
than powdered cocaine (cocaine hydrochloride). Five grams of
cocaine base triggered the penalties compared to 500 grams of
cocaine hydrochloride. In 1986, imprisonment of African
Americans for cocaine exceeded Caucasians for the first time.
Crack was seen as a cheaper and much more dangerous substance
than powder cocaine.
---------------------------
<3> Many of this material is from an ESPN investigative article
by Michael Weinreb:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=bias.
(More)
SB 1010 (Mitchell)
PageK
California separately defined, scheduled and punished powder
cocaine in contrast with other forms of cocaine in 1986. In
1987, cocaine base was specifically referenced in Schedule I<4>
and possession for sale of cocaine base was placed in Health and
Safety Code Section 11351.5, with higher penalties than for
cocaine hydrochloride.
3. Possession for Sale is not Distinguished from Simple
Possession by a Set Amount of a Controlled Substance - Factors
in Cocaine Base and Powder Cocaine Cases
Under California law, whether a drug was possessed for purposes
of sale is determined by all the factors of the charged
incident, not by a specified weight or volume of the drug
possessed. Typically, a law enforcement witness trained in drug
cases explains to the jury the facts on which the prosecution is
relying to prove that the defendant possessed a drug for sale.
The weight or volume of the drug is typically one of the many
factors noted by the witness. Law enforcement witnesses usually
refer to "indicia" of sale, such as scales for weighing
material, ledgers of payments, the manner in which the drug is
packaged and the amount and denominations of currency the
defendant was carrying.
Cocaine base is essentially made by mixing powder cocaine and
baking soda to form a solid, brittle, rock-like substance. A
defendant could be arrested for possession for sale of cocaine
base because he carried a number of individual "rocks" in small
plastic baggies, wrote names and dollar amounts on a piece of
paper and carried a number of bills in the denomination for
which cocaine base "rocks" of that size typically sell. Cocaine
base is often sold on street corners in open view. Law
enforcement officers can readily see such activity.
---------------------------
<4> Federal law provides that Schedule I drugs have a high
potential for abuse, no accepted medical use and cannot be
prescribed. Schedule II drugs, including cocaine hydrochloride,
have a high potential for abuse, but can be used in medicine.
(21 U.S.C. 812; Health & Saf. Code §§11054-11055.)
(More)
SB 1010 (Mitchell)
PageL
It may be more difficult to establish a case of possession for
sale of powdered cocaine - cocaine hydrochloride - than cocaine
base. Powder cocaine does not naturally come in a form for
ready retail sales. Powder cocaine, unlike cocaine base, would
not typically be sold as a single dose. Cocaine hydrochloride
is often sold in 1-gram "bindles" from which the user can obtain
multiple doses. Powder cocaine is thus not easily sold
hand-to-hand on the street.
4. California Prison Data on Ethnicity of Inmates Imprisoned for
Possession for Sale of Cocaine in Contrast with Possession
for Sale of Cocaine Base
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has
produced in 2013 data on the number of inmates from fiscal year
2005-2006 through 2009-2010 imprisoned for possession for sale
of powder cocaine and those imprisoned for possession for sale
of cocaine base. The data was disaggregated by ethnicity and
sex of the inmates. The data is set out without reflecting the
sex of the inmate:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Race/Ethnic|African |Caucasian |Latino |Other |
|ity |American | | | |
|-----------+-------------+-------------+------------+------------|
|Cocaine |2061 |829 |3285 |181 |
|-----------+-------------+-------------+------------+------------|
|Cocaine |4152 |96 |972 |142 |
|Base | | | | |
|-----------+-------------+-------------+------------+------------|
|Total |6213 |925 |4257 |323 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
African Americans were imprisoned for possession of cocaine base
for sale at a rate 43.25 times that for Caucasians. African
Americans were imprisoned for possession of cocaine
hydrochloride for sale at a rate 2.5 times that for Caucasians.
African Americans were imprisoned for possession of cocaine base
for sale at a rate 4.3 times that for Latinos. Latinos were
(More)
SB 1010 (Mitchell)
PageM
imprisoned for possession of cocaine hydrochloride for sale at a
rate 1.6 times that for African Americans.
5. Drug Use and Commerce by College Students and Adolescents,
Analyzed by Race and Ethnicity; Racial Disparities in Juvenile
Drug Prosecutions
In 2007, the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University published a study of drug and alcohol use by
college students.<5> The study showed substantially higher use
of drugs by whites than African Americans. For example, white
students were twice as likely to illicitly use prescription
drugs, marijuana and MDMA (ecstasy) than African American
students. Students at traditionally Black colleges had
particularly low drug use rates.
The 2011 National Institute of Health (NIH) study of adolescent
drug use<6> found that "African American students have
substantially lower rates of use of most ? drugs than do whites
at all three grade levels [10th-12th grades]." (Monitoring the
Future, National Results on Adolescent Drug Use, Johnston, et
al., NIH, 2012, p. 45.)
Despite the fact that white adolescents use drugs at much higher
rates than minority adolescents, the United States Department of
Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs
(OJJDP) found<7> that in 2006 "juvenile arrests
disproportionately involved minorities." African American
minors were arrested for drug offenses (30% of all drug arrests)
at a rate approximately 3 times their proportion of the
population. (Juv. Justice Bulletin, Nov. 2008, U.S. DOJ, OJJDP,
p. 10.)
---------------------------
<5>
http://www.casacolumbia.org/articlefiles/380-Wasting%20the%20Best
%20and%20the%20Brightest.pdf.
<6>
http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/mtf-overview2011.p
df.
<7> https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/221338.pdf.
(More)
SB 1010 (Mitchell)
PageN
Another study published in the American Journal of Alcohol and
Drug Abuse in March of 2010 analyzed data from the National
Survey on Drug Use and Health. According to a summary<8>
published by NIH, the study found that white and African
American youth engaged in drug commerce at equivalent rates.
However, white youth used and sold a wide range of drugs.
African American youth were more likely to use and sell
marijuana. White youth who were engaged in drug commerce were
also likely to be "entrenched" users of drugs such as cocaine.
The most recent drug trend statistics from the National
Institute on Drug Abuse - last revised in December, 2012<9> -
found that non-marijuana drug use has stayed relatively steady
in recent years. Cocaine use, however, is down:
Use of most drugs other than marijuana has not changed
appreciably over the past decade or has declined. In
2011, 6.1 million Americans aged 12 or older (or 2.4
percent) had used psycho-therapeutic prescription drugs
nonmedically (without a prescription or in a manner or
for a purpose not prescribed) in the past month-a
decrease from 2010. And 972,000 Americans (0.4
percent) had used hallucinogens (a category that
includes Ecstasy and LSD) in the past month-a decline
from 2010.
Cocaine use has gone down in the last few years; from
2006 to 2011, the number of current users aged 12 or
older dropped from 2.4 million to 1.4 million.
Methamphetamine use has also dropped, from 731,000
current users in 2006 to 439,000 in 2011.
6. Substantially Disproportionate Prosecution and Incarceration
of African Americans and Latinos Relative to Drug Use and
Commerce
---------------------------
<8> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871399/.
<9>
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-trends
.
(More)
SB 1010 (Mitchell)
PageO
Rates of Drug Use by Race and Ethnicity
Blacks, whites and Latinos use drugs at relatively similar
rates, with Latinos' usage the lowest of the three. Asians use
illicit drugs at a lower rate<10> than other ethnic or racial
groups. The data in the following chart is from the National
Survey on Drug Use and Health<11> published by United States
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), including the
most recent available data from 2011:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|YEAR |Rate of Drug |Rate of Drug |Rate of Drug |
| |Use - Whites |Use - Blacks |Use - Latinos |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2002 |8.5% |9.7 % |7.2% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2003 |8.3% |8.7% |8.0% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2004 |8.1% |8.7% |7.2% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2005 |8.1% |9.7% |7.6% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2006 |8.5% |9.8% |6.9% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2007 |8.2% |9.5% |6.6% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2008 |8.2% |10.1% |6.2% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2009 |8.8% |9.6% |7.9% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2010 |9.1% |10.7% |8.1% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
---------------------------
<10> Among Asians, the percentage using illicit drugs in the
past month was 3.5 percent in 2002, 3.8 percent in 2003, 3.1
percent in both 2004 and 2005, 3.6 percent in 2006, 4.2 percent
in 2007, 3.6 percent in 2008, 3.7 percent in 2009, 3.5 percent
in 2010 and 3.8 percent in 2011.
<11> Overall drug use in 2011 fell to 8.7 percent from 8.9
percent in 2010.
(More)
SB 1010 (Mitchell)
PageP
|2011 |8.7% |10% |8.4% |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Incarceration Rates in Drug Offenses by Race and Ethnicity
(White, Black and Latino Defendants)
According to a 1999-2005 Sentencing Project Study,<12> African
Americans are imprisoned for felony drug crimes at a rate five
times greater than their proportion of the population. Whites
are incarcerated for felony drug crimes at rate that is one
third or one quarter their proportion of the population:
(More)
---------------------------
<12> http://sentencingproject.org/doc/dp_raceanddrugs.pdf.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|YEAR |Whites - |Blacks - |Latinos - |
| |Percentage of |Percentage of |Percentage of |
| |State Prison |State Prison |State Prison |
| |Drug Crime |Drug Crime |Drug Crime |
| |Populations |Population |Population |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|1999 |20.2% |57.6% |20.7% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2000 |23.2% |57.9% |17.2% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2001 |23.3% |56.8% |19.1% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2002 |24.3% |47.5% |23.3% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2003 |25.9% |53.0% |20.0% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2004 |26.4% |45.1% |20.8% |
|----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|2005 |28.5% |44.8% |20.2% |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
These data must be viewed in light of the proportion of whites,
blacks and Latinos in the population. According to the United
States Census:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|All whites, |Non-Hispanic |African |Latino/Hispanic |
|including |whites |Americans | |
|Hispanics of | | | |
|European | | | |
|origin | | | |
|--------------+----------------+---------------+-----------------|
|72.4% |63.7% |12.6% |16.3% |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In 2000, Human Rights Watch researchers found that through 1996
African Americans were 13 times more times more likely to be
(More)
SB 1010 (Mitchell)
PageR
imprisoned for drug crimes than whites.<13> The Sentencing
Project study indicates that that disparity has been reduced
somewhat in recent years, although the disparity is still
striking. These disproportionate prosecution rates exist
despite the fact that African Americans and whites use drugs in
roughly equivalent proportions. Other studies have reported
that white youth sell drugs at a much higher rate than African
American youth.
7. Issues of Controlling or Limiting Drug Commerce through
Criminal Penalties
Drug Control through Criminal Penalties Generally
This bill continues a decades-long history of expanded criminal
penalties for commerce in drugs of intoxication. Numerous
studies have concluded that criminal penalties have not
substantially limited drug abuse, but prohibition has generated
substantial profits for illicit trade.
President Nixon declared a war on drugs in 1971. California
adopted the federal controlled schedules and set penalties based
on the federal schedules in 1972. Nixon established the Drug
Enforcement Administration in 1973. President Reagan signed
legislation establishing mandatory minimums for drug crimes in
1986. George H.W. Bush appointed the first drug czar
in 1989. Inherent in these policies is a belief that relatively
severe penalties for drug crimes, including drug possession,
deter people from using or selling drugs. (Timeline, America's
War on Drugs, NPR, April 2, 2007<14>; Health & Saf. Code §§
11054-11058; 11350-11383.7, 11351.5.)
In June 2011, the Global Commission on Drug Policy released a
report, "War on Drugs," examining global drug policy over the
past half-century. The Commission is comprised of current and
---------------------------
<13> http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/.
<14>
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9252490.
SB 1010 (Mitchell)
PageS
former heads of state, public officials, and experts.<15>
The report states:
The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating
consequences for individuals and societies around the
world. Fifty years after the initiation of the UN
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and 40 years
after President Nixon launched the US government's war
on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global
drug control policies are urgently needed.
Vast expenditures on criminalization and repressive
measures directed at producers, traffickers and
consumers of illegal drugs have clearly failed to
effectively curtail supply or consumption. Apparent
victories in eliminating one source or trafficking
organization are negated almost instantly by the
emergence of other sources and traffickers.
Repressive efforts directed at consumers impede public
health measures to reduce HIV/AIDS, overdose
fatalities and other harmful consequences of drug use.
Government expenditures on futile supply reduction
strategies and incarceration displace more
cost-effective and evidence-based investments in
demand and harm reduction." (Global Commission on
Drug Policy, War on Drugs (June 2011), italics added.)
***************
---------------------------
<15> http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/Commission>.