Drug legalizers want you to believe a lie—

that our prisons are filled with marijuana

smokers. In fact, the vast majority of drug

prisoners are violent criminals, repeat

offenders, traffickers, or all of the above.

OFFICE OF NA TIONAL DR UG C ONTROL POLIC Y
Who’s Really

in Prison for

Marijuana?

Drug legalizers want you to believe a lie—

that our prisons are filled with marijuana

smokers. In fact, the vast majority of drug

prisoners are violent criminals, repeat

offenders, traffickers, or all of the above.

OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) extends special thanks to the

following individuals and organizations for their help in researching and reviewing

this booklet. Without their valuable insights and patient guidance, this project

would not have been possible:

Allen Beck, Christopher Mumola, and Matthew Durose, Bureau of Justice Statistics;

Gregory Mitchell and Wes Clark, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration; Louis Reedt

and Christine Kitchens, U.S. Sentencing Commission; Wayne Raabe, Criminal Division,

U.S. Department of Justice; Donna Eide, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of

Indiana; Randall Hensel, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, Florida; Patricia White and

Tourine Phillips, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges; Alec Christoff,

National Drug Court Institute; Debra Whitcomb, American Prosecutors Research

Institute; Joe Weedon, American Correctional Association; Rosalie Liccardo Pacula,

RAND; Jonathan P. Caulkins, H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy & Management,

Carnegie Mellon University; Jamie Chriqui and Joanna King, The MayaTech

Corporation; and Jeffrey Robinson, writer.

WHO’S R E A L L Y I N PRISON FOR MARIJUANA? 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

SUMMARY  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

SCRATCHING THE SURFACE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

The same old story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Looking at the laws  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Possession vs. trafficking  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

BEYOND THE CLAIMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

UNTANGLING THE STATISTICS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Numbers don’t lie—but they can deceive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

State prison system  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Federal court system  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Sentencing on the level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

How plea bargains distort the picture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

The rest of the story: What the headlines don’t reveal  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Crimes and punishment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

A SYSTEM THAT WORKS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

Alternatives to incarceration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

CONCLUSION  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

WHO’S R E A L LY I N PRISON FOR MARIJUANA? 5
FOREWORD

In this report, we have endeavored to set the record straight regarding one of the

most pervasive myths about marijuana. The truth, supported overwhelmingly by the

best data available, is that our prisons are not overflowing with people arrested just

for smoking pot. On the contrary, we are seeking—through new treatment­oriented

approaches such as drug courts—to divert those whose involvement with drugs is

limited to their own use, while actively working to disrupt drug­trafficking

organizations by prosecuting those who distribute or deal in illicit drugs.

Of course, there will always be those who reject

everything the government says or does. There are also

those who are willing to spread false information for the

purpose of legalizing drug trafficking and use—despite all

the harm this would cause and the overwhelming public

opposition to it.

While we cannot state categorically that no simple

marijuana user has ever received a jail or prison sentence,

the evidence is overwhelming that these cases are rare.

The system on the whole is sound, it is just, and it is

working as it should. Moreover, recent innovations such as J O H N   P.  WA LT E R S

drug courts are signs that the system is improving still.

Those who traffic in illegal drugs, who prey on our nation’s youth with poisons that

destroy bodies, minds, and futures, should find no refuge in the criminal justice

system. Long prison terms, in many cases, are the most appropriate response to

these predators. But for those on the other end of the criminal spectrum—the mere

users—different measures are often in order, such as intervention, drug treatment,

and the offer of another chance to end their destructive behavior.

The goal of drug laws, after all, is not just to penalize, but to keep people from

harming themselves and others. So if we can stop these users now, before they

become dependent and while they still have time to turn their lives around, the

laws will have served their purpose well.

John P. Walters

Director

Office of National Drug Control Policy

WHO’S R E A L LY I N PRISON FOR MARIJUANA? 7
SUMMARY

The idea that our nation’s prisons are overflowing with otherwise law­abiding

people convicted for nothing more than simple possession of marijuana is treated

by many as conventional wisdom.

But this, in fact, is a myth—an illusion conjured and aggressively perpetuated by

drug advocacy groups seeking to relax or abolish America’s marijuana laws. In reality,

the vast majority of inmates in state and federal prison for marijuana have been

found guilty of much more than simple possession. Some were convicted for drug

trafficking, some for marijuana

possession along with one or

more other offenses. And many

of those serving time for

marijuana pled down to

possession in order to avoid

prosecution on much more

serious charges.

In 1997, the year for which the

most recent data are available,

just 1.6 percent of the state

inmate population were held for

offenses involving only marijuana,

and less than one percent of all

state prisoners (0.7 percent) were

incarcerated with marijuana possession as the only charge, according to the U.S.

Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). An even smaller fraction of

state prisoners in 1997 who were convicted just for marijuana possession were firsttime offenders (0.3 percent).

The numbers on the federal level tell a similar story. Out of all drug defendants

sentenced in federal court for marijuana crimes in 2001, the overwhelming majority

were convicted for trafficking, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Only

2.3 percent—186 people—received sentences for simple possession, and of the 174

for whom sentencing information is known, just 63 actually served time behind bars.

simple possession.

In reality, the vast majority of

inmates in state and federal

prison for marijuana have been

found guilty of much more than

WHO’S R E A L LY I N PRISON FOR MARIJUANA? 9
Drug use harms the user and it harms the community, and because of this, criminal

penalties have been put in place to control the possession and use of illicit

substances. Built into the criminal justice system is an appropriate measure of

discretion that responds to the gravity of the offense. Those who persistently violate

the country’s drug laws face criminal penalties, which may include time behind bars.

For offenders whose involvement in law­breaking is minor, the sanctions are slight

and often involve a referral to treatment rather than incarceration.

And yet, in spite of these facts, a false characterization continues to be promoted

that depicts the criminal­justice response to marijuana violations as unduly harsh,

exclusively punitive, and disproportionate. This characterization must be countered

by the truth, which is this: Americans are not routinely being sent to prison in large

numbers just for possessing small amounts of marijuana. Our criminal justice

system, on the whole, is fair and equitable, and despite frequent claims to the

contrary, there’s very little chance that anyone in this country, particularly a first­time

offender, will be sent to prison for merely puffing a “joint.”

10 W H O ’ S R E A L LY I N PRISON FOR MARIJUANA?
SCRATCHING THE SURFACE

The headline says it all: “22­year­old suburban kid gets 25 years for selling pot.”1

Or does it?

Seth Michael Ferranti was a kid from Northern Virginia who, as various Internet Web

sites characterize his plight,2 fell victim to the government’s draconian drug laws

after he got busted near St. Louis with some marijuana. The state of Missouri

extradited him to Virginia, where the Feds stepped in and put him away for two

dozen years.

“I’m a prisoner in the war on drugs,” Ferranti told Rolling Stone magazine.3 In an essay

posted on the Internet by a group called the November Coalition, Ferranti expresses

dismay at his incarceration: “I was from the suburbs,” he writes. “What was I doing in

jail with a plastic mattress, no pillow,

no sheets, no nothing? I thought

America was the land of opportunity,

the land of the free. But it isn’t.”4

Clearly, this should not be the fate of a

law­abiding young man who simply

made a mistake. As it turns out,

though, Ferranti was not exactly a lawabiding young man. This was not his

first “mistake,” and it involved much

Shortly before his sentencing,

and despite the deal he struck

with prosecutors, Ferranti faked

his own suicide and vanished.

more than a few bags of marijuana.

From 1989 to 1991, Ferranti ran a drug­trafficking network that distributed more

than 100,000 doses of LSD to high school and college kids in Fairfax County, Virginia.

Arrested and charged, he pled guilty to the crime of engaging in a continuing

criminal enterprise—a felony—and was released on his own recognizance pending

trial. To reduce his sentence, he agreed to testify against one of his fellow drug gang

members. Shortly before his sentencing, however, and despite the deal he struck

with prosecutors, he faked his own suicide and vanished.

Ferranti spent several years on the run, distributing and transporting significant

quantities of marijuana across state lines, and eventually earning a spot on the U.S.

Marshals Service’s “15 Most Wanted”list. In September 1993, he was arrested in St.

Charles County, Missouri, for possession of marijuana. By then, Ferranti was hiding

his true identity behind false driver’s licenses, state ID cards, check­cashing ID cards,

birth certificates, and voter registration cards. The arresting officers, unaware of the

outstanding warrants against him, let him go.

WHO’S R E A L LY I N PRISON FOR MARIJUANA? 11
It was another month before U.S. Marshals tracked Ferranti to St. Louis. They finally

nabbed him there, along with his phony IDs and 18 pounds of marijuana. The

Marshals brought him back to Virginia, where the court sentenced him to 12

months in prison for failing to appear at his sentencing and for mail fraud while he

was a fugitive. The judge also ordered Ferranti to serve out his original term of 24

years and 3 months without the possibility of parole—not for marijuana, but for

selling LSD.5

The same old story

Ferranti’s tale is one of many tough­luck stories that are recounted by marijuana

advocates and drug­law critics to show how an overzealous judicial system targets

small­time marijuana offenders. As a result of this allegedly brutal and unjust

crackdown, the advocates say, our nation's prisons are teeming with nonviolent

non­criminals whose only offense was possessing small amounts of marijuana.

The idea that people are rotting away behind bars for nothing more than simple

possession of marijuana has gained considerable currency in recent popular

opinion. An article posted on the Internet by a well­known online magazine is a

case in point. In the course of attacking what it describes as uneven drug­law

enforcement in this country, the article states that “thousands of people languish in

jails and prisons across America, serving long sentences for nothing more than

simple possession of marijuana.”6

It’s hardly an isolated accusation. Variations on this theme are common among

those arguing for looser marijuana laws. For example:

• “A marijuana smoker is arrested every 45 seconds in America.”7

• “Unfortunately, the bulk of our nation’s current anti­drug efforts and

priorities remain fixated on arresting and jailing drug consumers—

particularly recreational marijuana smokers.”8

• “We're also a nation overrun with robbers, rapists, murderers, wife beaters,

child molesters. We say we’re petrified of them. Yet we're releasing them

first from overcrowded jails so dope smokers can take their cells.”9

• “Four million Americans were arrested for marijuana violations, the vast

majority for simple possession, during [President Bill] Clinton’s reign.”10

• “Though there aren’t enough cells for violent criminals, marijuana smokers

and small­time dealers are going to prison by the thousands—sometimes

for life.”11

12 W H O ’ S R E A L LY I N PRISON FOR MARIJUANA?
Such allegations paint a horrific picture of the criminal justice system, conjuring

visions of jack­booted officers kicking down doors to arrest recreational users

peacefully puffing marijuana in their living rooms. Untold quantities of ink and

energy are devoted to perpetuating this image of harmless marijuana smokers as

victims of government persecution. Meanwhile, special­interest groups and activists

with a pro­marijuana agenda cloud the issue further by mixing and matching halftruths, citing statistics out of context, and making emotional appeals about the

benefits of so­called “medical marijuana.”

Finding the facts amid all the hyperbole and deception is not a simple task. But if

you look beyond the unsubstantiated claims and carefully examine what is really

happening, you see that the picture presented by the drug legalizers is wildly out of

focus, and that the truth is something they do not want you to know.

Looking at the laws

To find out who is, and who is not, getting locked up for marijuana offenses, it helps

to start with some definitions. “Simple possession”is the term typically used in cases

when someone has on his or her person, or available for his or her use, a small

amount of an illegal substance for the purpose of consuming or using it but

without the intent to sell or give it to anyone else. Specific definitions of “simple

possession” vary from state to state.

In federal court, simple possession of marijuana is punishable by up to a year in

prison and a $1,000 fine for a first offense.12 For offenders possessing an ounce or

less of marijuana, federal prosecutors have discretion to charge under the “personal

use”statute. Here, possession is treated not as a crime but as a civil offense, much

like a traffic ticket, but with a fine of up to $10,000.13

On the matter of terminology, another important point is the distinction between

“jail” and “prison.”Although the terms are often used interchangeably in casual

discourse, there are actually important differences between the two. In most states,

if not all, prison is the federal­ or state­run institution where inmates serve sentences

of a year or longer for felony crimes. Jails, on the other hand, are detention facilities

usually managed by city or county governments and traditionally reserved for

individuals awaiting trial and defendants serving less than a year for misdemeanor

offenses.14

To understand how the drug laws are enforced, it is helpful to look briefly at the

laws themselves in the 50 states, the federal system, and the District of Columbia. All

52 jurisdictions divide offenses into two general categories. The more serious of the

two encompasses the charges of growing, manufacturing, distributing, and

trafficking—all of which, generally, are felonies. The other category deals with

possession, and here the specific amount becomes important. In most cases, when

the amount possessed is low, the offense is defined as a misdemeanor or a nonWHO’S R E A L LY I N PRISON FOR MARIJUANA? 13
criminal offense.15 The threshold quantity differs from state to state, but many draw

the “small amount”line for marijuana at about an ounce (28.3 grams).16

Some states—including Colorado, Maine, Nebraska, New York, and Ohio—have

gone so far as to downgrade simple possession of marijuana from a misdemeanor

to a civil offense, equating it to a traffic violation. This is not to say that penalties

for the simple possession of marijuana have been removed. Indeed, the drug is

still considered illegal in all 52 jurisdictions, including those where various

“medical marijuana” defenses apply. And in 19 jurisdictions, judges have the

discretion of imposing sentences of up to a year in custody for the lowest

marijuana­possession offenses.17

But judges can, and frequently do, impose other conditions of probation in lieu of

incarceration. For example, they can order a fine ranging from a few hundred dollars

in some states to several thousand in others. They also have the ability to require

offenders to enroll in drug treatment programs or to perform community service

instead of doing time behind bars.

Ten jurisdictions—California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska,

Nevada, New York, Ohio, and Oregon—have specifically eliminated incarceration as

an option for a first offense of simple possession of marijuana. Fines in most of those

states range from $100 to $300, with Oregon allowing a fine of $500 to $1,000 and

Nevada authorizing a fine of up to $5,000.18

Although a conviction for marijuana possession can, on rare occasions, result in a

prison term, sentences of less than a year are frequently served not in the state

penitentiary but in the local jail.

Possession vs. trafficking

State and federal laws make a significant distinction between possession of small

amounts of marijuana and amounts that clearly show that a person is engaged in the

manufacture, cultivation, sale, or distribution of the drug. This is because the laws

reflect our societal view that small­time users who are either dependent on drugs or

at risk of becoming dependent need help to stop their use, and that through

education, treatment, and reinforcement, these people can become drug free.

Trafficking, on the other hand, is viewed as a much more serious enterprise, akin to

violent crime. It terrorizes communities and destroys lives. That policymakers would

require more stringent punishment for trafficking offenses should come as no

surprise to anyone who understands the drug trade and the magnitude of the

damage it inflicts on our society.

14 W H O ’ S R E A L LY I N P RISO N F O R M A RIJU A N A ?
BEYOND THE CLAIMS

It would be wrong to suggest that simple­possession offenders never see the inside

of a prison cell. Sometimes they do, of course. A few may be sentenced outright,

even when no other charges or aggravating factors are involved. But there is also a

range of other circumstances under which a simple­possession marijuana offender

might receive a prison sentence. For example, this could happen if: 

• the marijuana offense was committed while the offender was on

probation or parole;

• an offender charged with a more serious crime pleads guilty to the lesser

offense of marijuana possession but, as part of a plea bargain, is required

to serve a prison sentence;

• the offender has a criminal history, particularly one involving drugs or

violent crime;

• the violation took place in a designated drug­free zone (such as on school

property); or

• the marijuana sentence piggybacks (runs concurrent with) the sentence

for one or more other offenses;

Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, there is no shortage of claims

about so­called victims of the drug war who, charged with nothing more than

minor marijuana violations, are serving long prison terms. Some of these allegations

are grounded in truth but lack crucial elaboration or context. Most are exaggerations

or blatant fiction. On the next two pages are a few claims that have been put

forward by marijuana advocates, followed by facts that tell a different story.

WHO’S R E A L LY I N PRISON FOR MARIJUANA? 15
THE CLAIM:

•“There have been 13,000,000 marijuana­related arrests since 1970.”19

•“In all, 704,812 Americans were arrested last year on marijuana­related

charges.”20

•“800,000 people are arrested on marijuana charges each year.”21

•“5.2 million marijuana arrests since 1992.”22

LOOK AGAIN: 

It’s true that many people are arrested for offenses involving marijuana. However,

the above assertions are vague and misleading, in that “marijuana­related arrests,”

“marijuana­related charges,”“marijuana charges,” and “marijuana arrests” do not

distinguish between a college student caught with one joint and a trafficker with

several tons. Nor do they reflect how many of those arrests involved other, more

serious crimes, or how many of those arrests actually led to incarceration.

THE CLAIM:

“The penalties for a first pot offense range from probation to life in prison and fines

of up to $4 million, depending on the amount of pot.” 23

LOOK AGAIN: 

The probation part of that statement is correct. The part about life in prison and a $4

million fine evidently comes from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for the sale or

cultivation of enormous amounts of marijuana. To generate a life sentence in federal

court, a conviction would have to involve at least 33 tons of marijuana and

additional aggravating factors, such as a leadership role in a continuing criminal

activity. No one can get a life sentence in federal prison for marijuana based solely

on the amount involved.24

A few states—including Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Texas—do, in

fact, allow judges to impose a life sentence even for a first pot offense. Texas applies

this provision only to trafficking offenses and to possession cases involving a ton or

more of marijuana, and in Nevada, a life sentence is possible with possession of

10,000 pounds—five tons—or more. In the other states mentioned above, a firsttime marijuana offense can draw a life sentence only if the case involves the sale,

manufacture, or cultivation of the drug, not mere possession.25

16 W H O ’ S R E A L LY I N P RISO N F O R M A RIJU A N A ?
THE CLAIM:

“Even peaceful marijuana smokers sentenced to ‘life MMS’ [mandatory minimum

sentences] must serve a life sentence with no chance of parole.”26

LOOK AGAIN: 

Mandatory minimums generally do not apply in cases involving only simple

possession of marijuana, particularly for a first offense. Rather, states that set

mandatory minimums for marijuana offenses usually apply them only to the

cultivation, sale, or trafficking of the drug. So unless “peaceful marijuana smokers” are

found guilty of more than simple possession, it is highly unlikely they will face a

mandatory minimum sentence.

There are, however, a few very specific exceptions to this rule. In Louisiana, for

instance, a first­time conviction for possession of marijuana on a school bus or

within 1,000 feet of a school, religious building, or public housing triggers a

mandatory minimum sentence of at least three months.27

In the great majority of cases, people serving long prison terms for marijuana have

been convicted of crimes far more serious than simple possession. They have

previous felony convictions or have been found guilty of such offenses as

distributing, selling, manufacturing, or illegally importing drugs, money­laundering,

violating parole or drug kingpin statutes, or various combinations of those crimes.

It’s also true that a number of inmates technically serving time for marijuana

possession have been convicted of that offense along with another, more serious

crime. Most often in cases like this, the sentence for marijuana possession is simply

running concurrent with (at the same time as) the more serious sentence. So while

they may indeed have been convicted for marijuana possession, it was the other,

more serious crime that put them behind bars.

W H O ’ S R E A L LY I N P RISO N F O R M A RIJU A N A ? 17
18 W H O ’ S R E A L LY I N PRISON FOR MARIJUANA?
UNTANGLING THE STATISTICS

Numbers don’t lie—but they can deceive

A little knowledge, it’s often said, is a

dangerous thing. And that is

precisely the problem in the

marijuana sentencing debate. The

danger, of course, is that arguments

built on shaky ground can still be

quite persuasive, especially if they

tug at the heartstrings and stir

outrage over an apparent injustice.

Those pushing to relax marijuana

laws rely on authentic­sounding

numbers and percentages to make

their point about peace­loving pot smokers languishing in prison. And yet statistics

can mask as much as they reveal. Drug advocates often select only those portions of

the available data that support their position, ignoring facts and context that would

point to a very different conclusion.

Drug advocates often select

only those portions of the

available data that support

their position, ignoring facts

and context that would point to

a very different conclusion.

Sometimes, in fact, the truth lies not so much in having the right information, but in

grasping the full context. Consider this example: A man is arrested for rape and

assault, and at the time of his arrest police discover a bag of marijuana in his pocket.

After being found guilty at trial of all charges, the man is sentenced to 20 years in

prison for rape and assault, and one year concurrent for marijuana possession.

Obviously, marijuana did not put him in prison or affect his sentence in any way.

And yet, technically, he is in prison for marijuana possession.

Cases such as this, which are common, can skew perceptions of how many people

are arrested or incarcerated for marijuana possession. It is easy to see how, through

manipulation of the statistics and omission of essential context, clever people can

make convincing claims about the number of small­time marijuana offenders

serving prison sentences. Those claims, however, fall apart under rigorous

examination of the facts.

State prison system

Using data from 1997 (the most recent survey results available), the Bureau of

Justice Statistics (BJS) divided drug offenders in the state prison system into two

general categories: trafficking offenses, which accounted for 70 percent of drug law

violators, and possession offenses, accounting for about 27 percent.28

W H O ’ S R E A L LY I N P RISO N F O R M A RIJU A N A ? 19
Out of the total number of state inmates doing time for any drug offense, 83

percent had a prior criminal history. In other words, the large majority were not firsttime offenders. They were people who had committed crimes in the past, and

nearly two­thirds of them (62 percent) had multiple prior convictions.29 Marijuana

accounted for just 13 percent of all state drug offenders.30

Looking at it from the broader perspective of the entire prison population, BJS

noted that in 1997 marijuana was involved in the conviction of only 2.7 percent of

all state inmates. About 1.6 percent of the state prison population were held for

offenses involving just marijuana, while just 0.7 percent were incarcerated with

marijuana possession as the only charge.31

Further narrowing the field by excluding those prisoners with criminal histories, BJS

found that only 0.3 percent of all state inmates were first­time marijuana­possession

offenders (see Figure 1). And this statistic, it’s worth noting, refers to possession of any

amount—even as much as a hundred pounds or more—not just “personal use”

quantities.32

Recent BJS estimates based on prisoner surveys show that at midyear 2002,

approximately 8,400 state prison inmates were serving time for marijuana

possession (any amount), and fewer than half of them were first­time offenders. The

point here is inescapable: Of the more than 1.2 million people serving time in state

prisons across America, only 3,600 individuals were sentenced on a first offense for

possession of marijuana. Again, this figure includes possession of any amount.33

FIGURE 1

Inmates in state prison for marijuana offenses (1997)34

Drug possession offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.6% of all state inmates

First­time drug offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.6% of all state inmates

Offenses involving marijuana  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.7% of all state inmates

Prisoners held for marijuana only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.6% of all state inmates

Prisoners held for marijuana possession only . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.7% of all state inmates

First­time offenders held only for marijuana possession 

(any amount)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.3% of all state inmates

20 W H O ’ S R E A L LY I N P RISO N F O R M A RIJU A N A ?
Federal court system

The numbers are equally compelling on the federal level. In its 1997 prisoner survey,

BJS found that drug­possession offenders made up 18.3 percent of the federal

inmate population. Looking closely at the specific crimes involved, BJS researchers

calculated that 11.9 percent of all federal prisoners in 1997 were serving time on

charges that included some kind of marijuana violation, and that 9.3 percent were

being held for marijuana offenses only.

The number dropped significantly when traffickers and repeat offenders were

removed from the mix. According to BJS, only 2.2 percent of federal inmates in 1997

had been sentenced just on charges of marijuana possession, and less than half of

that group—1.0 percent—were first­time offenders.35

Data from the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) reinforce the BJS

findings. In 2001, according to the USSC, 24,349 people were sentenced in federal

court for drug crimes under six offense categories. Fifty of those cases were

excluded from the USSC’s tally for lack of sufficient documentation. Of the

remaining 24,299, marijuana accounted for 7,991 (32.9 percent).36

The pro­marijuana lobby often points out that nearly one­third of all federal drug

defendants are charged with marijuana offenses.37 What they generally fail to

mention, however, is that only a tiny percentage of that number are actually

convicted for marijuana possession. As the USSC points out, of all drug defendants

sentenced in federal court for marijuana crimes in 2001, the overwhelming majority

were convicted for trafficking. Only 2.3 percent—186 people—received sentences

for simple possession (see Figure 2), and of the 174 for whom sentencing information

is known, just 63 actually served time behind bars.38

In 1998, Columbia University’s National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse

(CASA) published the results of a three­year study into drug and alcohol

abuse/addiction among inmates in federal and state prisons and local jails. In Behind

Bars: Substance Abuse and America’s Prison Population, which used information

collected by BJS and other sources, CASA showed just how groundless is the claim

that nonviolent offenders guilty of mere possession are filling our jails and prisons.

Based on the available data, “it appears that few inmates could be in prison or jail

solely for possession of small amounts of marijuana,”said the report. “Indeed,”it

continued, “the number is likely so small that it would have little or no impact on

overcrowding or the vast gap between the need for treatment and training and

available slots.”39

W H O ’ S R E A L LY I N P RISO N F O R M A RIJU A N A ? 21
FIGURE 2

Marijuana offenders sentenced in federal court system (2001)40

• Drug offenders sentenced in federal court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24,299

• Drug offenders sentenced for marijuana  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7,991

• Marijuana offenders sentenced for trafficking  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7,805 (97.7%)

• Marijuana offenders sentenced for simple possession  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .186 (2.3%)

• Marijuana offenders sentenced for simple possession who went to prison . . . .63*

* of the 174 for whom sentencing information is known

Sentencing on the level

A look at the guidelines that federal judges follow in determining the sentences

they impose sheds further light on why people arrested for small amounts of

marijuana are rarely sent to prison.

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines41 categorize offenses into “set severity levels”that

can be adjusted up or down depending on the circumstances. For example, a

violation involving 40­60 kilos (approximately 88­132 pounds) of marijuana is a level

20 offense, which carries a sentence of 33­41 months. If the defendant has been a

manager or supervisor in a drug gang, the level can be raised by three. Obstruction

of justice raises the level by another two. So a 40­60 kilo offense for a gang

supervisor charged with obstruction can become a level 25, which carries a

sentence of 57 to 71 months.42

By the same token, if the defendant in that 40­60 kilo marijuana charge is a

minimal participant and accepts his or her responsibility in the crime, the level may

be lowered by six. That brings a level 20 down to a level 14, which carries only 15

to 21 months.

Now consider the case of a first­time offender caught with, say, two kilograms of

marijuana (a little more than 4 pounds, or approximately 5,440 joints). This would

be listed as a level 10 offense, which, according to the sentencing guidelines,

carries a 6­ to 12­month sentence. The defendant’s acceptance of responsibility can

knock it down two points to a level 8, which dictates up to six months—but can

also include probation.

The same rules apply to smaller amounts as well. According to the sentencing

guidelines, simple possession of marijuana is, at most, a level 4 offense, carrying a

sentence of 0­6 months for first­time offenders and up to a year for those with a

22 W H O ’ S R E A L LY I N P RISO N F O R M A RIJU A N A ?
criminal history. Acceptance of responsibility can trigger a reduction to level 2,

which even for offenders with a long criminal record calls for no more than 7

months’ incarceration.43

Such flexibility in the sentencing structure gives judges latitude in the punishment

they mete out, and it helps to explain why a number of people convicted in federal

court for small amounts of marijuana wind up doing no prison time at all.

It turns out, in fact, that most inmates in federal prison for marijuana possession

were arrested for considerably more than a small amount, as revealed by an eyeopening statistic from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. According to BJS estimates

based on a survey of federal prisoners in 1997, the median amount of marijuana

involved in the conviction of marijuana­only possession offenders was 115 pounds.

In other words, half of all federal prisoners convicted only for marijuana possession

were caught with amounts exceeding 115 pounds.44 At, say, 85 joints per ounce,45

115 pounds translates into approximately 156,400 joints.

HOW PLEA BARGAINS DISTORT THE PICTURE

Whenever you see numbers that show how many people have gone to prison for

possession of marijuana—regardless of the amounts involved—it’s important to

keep in mind that these figures tell only part of the story. To see the full picture, you

need to take the original charges into account. In many cases, both the prosecutor

and defendant have agreed to the possession charge as part of an arrangement

called a plea bargain.

It is standard practice in drug cases for the offender to be given the opportunity to

plead guilty in exchange for lighter punishment, thus sparing taxpayers the expense

of a trial. If only one crime is alleged, the prosecutor will typically offer a shorter

sentence or a lesser charge. If multiple charges are involved, the standard practice is

to dismiss one charge in exchange for a guilty plea to another. The incentive may be

enhanced further if the government feels the offender can provide valuable

assistance to law enforcement.

Plea bargains are a useful tool, but they can distort the statistics on marijuanapossession offenders, consequently leading some people to claim that our prisons

are overflowing with pot smokers. According to a 2001 BJS report, nearly 30 percent

of all convicted federal drug offenders have received sentences below the guideline

level in exchange for assisting the authorities.65 Moreover, the report points out that

virtually all federal drug convictions—95 percent—were the result of guilty pleas, a

fact that speaks to the widespread use of plea bargaining.66

W H O ’ S R E A L LY I N P RISO N F O R M A RIJU A N A ? 23
46

I

47

48 the idea being that

49

24 ’ S I N

THE REST OF THE STORY

What the Headlines Don’t Reveal

Abandoning statistics when the numbers don’t support their cause, drug advocates

frequently turn to anecdotal evidence, copiously citing cases of individuals who, in

their view, have received exceedingly harsh penalties for minor drug infractions. On

the surface, they may seem to have a point. Scratch that surface, though, and quite

often a different story emerges.

Donovan James Adams

Take, for instance, the tale of Donovan James Adams, described by one advocacy

group as a “casual marijuana user”who increased his use to treat depression and

headaches caused by injuries received in a car accident. But his headaches were

just beginning. 

n 1998, then­24­year­old Adams was tried in a Montana federal court and

sentenced to 66 months behind bars for selling three ounces of marijuana while

carrying a firearm. Adams’s name appears on an Internet site along with those of

other drug offenders under the heading “Profiles of Injustice,”

his sentence for a marijuana­related offense was unfair and inappropriately harsh.

True, only three ounces were involved. But marijuana was only part of the story.

Adams was arrested for selling those three ounces to an undercover detective, one

ounce at a time, in three separate transactions. Even then, state guidelines dictated

that he might have been able to work out a deal for probation or, at worst, get sent

away for no more than six months.

The case got complicated and was prosecuted in federal court because Adams had

displayed an automatic pistol during the course of selling the drugs. And it was the

weapons charge—not the drug charge—that drew the long prison term. In effect,

Adams is serving 60 of those 66 months for the gun charge. For being caught

dealing marijuana three times, he got just six months. 

Mark Young

Convicted and sentenced to life in prison in 1992 for his role in a conspiracy to

distribute huge amounts of marijuana, Mark Young achieved near­celebrity 

status when his story became the centerpiece of the 1994 magazine article 

“Reefer Madness.”

The widely quoted article, published in The Atlantic Monthly, describes Young as a

middleman who “simply introduced two people hoping to sell a large amount of

W H O R E A L LY P RISO N F O R M A RIJU A N A ?
WHO’S R E A L LY I N PRISON FOR MARIJUANA? 25

I

50

I

51

52

53

54

I

55

56 Had he simply

marijuana to three people wishing to buy it.” n this and a follow­up article, Young is

presented as a man who had no history of violent crime and who was not linked to

the transaction by “confiscated marijuana, money, or physical evidence of any kind.”

The actual events of the case, however, reveal he was much more than an innocent

go­between.

n 1991, Young brokered a transaction between a group of growers seeking to sell

large quantities of marijuana and some drug traffickers who wanted to buy it.

Young, then 36, invited the two parties into his house and helped set up a 700­

pound, $700,000 deal, cutting himself in for a handsome 10 percent broker’s fee. In

all, he made between $60,000 and $70,000 in commissions before police discovered

the scheme, broke up the ring, and arrested its members.

Government prosecutors in the Southern District of Indiana explained to Young that,

if convicted, his two previous felony drug convictions (for which he received

suspended sentences) would be taken into consideration at sentencing. Should he

lose in court, he faced a very long prison term. The prosecutors offered him a deal: If

he pled guilty and agreed to testify against his co­conspirators, the government

would ask for a greatly reduced sentence. Young’s family urged him to cooperate,

but he refused. As he is quoted as saying later, “I feel kind of proud to have

principles.” Meanwhile, some of the others involved in the case agreed to testify

against him. According to court testimony, Young threatened to have his former

partners killed, along with their families.

n February 1992, Young was convicted by a jury for conspiracy to manufacture in

excess of 1,000 marijuana plants, and for possessing with the intent to distribute

more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. He was sentenced to life in prison without

the possibility of parole.

But the story does not end there.

On appeal, Young’s prison sentence was reduced to 151 months. He served his

time and got out on supervised release, only to return for another six months for

violating the terms of his probation. (He had failed several drug tests for using

marijuana and cocaine.) Having served that sentence, he got out of prison—and

again violated parole by testing positive for drugs and failing to report for a random

drug screen. In May 2004, Mark Young was ordered back to prison for another nine

months, with an 81­month term of supervised release to follow.

managed to stay “clean,” he’d be a free man today.
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT

Critics of federal drug policy often make the claim that drug offenders

typically serve longer sentences than people convicted for rape, assault,

robbery, or even murder. While prison terms can indeed be stiff for drug

trafficking, sentences for drug possession are generally much shorter than

those handed down for major crimes. The following lists, based on the most

recently available government statistics, show median sentence lengths for

selected state and federal crimes.

Median Sentence Lengths

State Courts (2000)57

Murder  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .264 months

Robbery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 months

Sexual assault (including rape) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 months

Drug trafficking  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 months

Aggravated assault  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 months

Drug possession  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 months

Federal Courts (FY2001)58

Murder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153.5 months

Robbery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 months

Drug trafficking  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 months

Sexual abuse  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 months

Assault  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 months

Simple possession of illegal drugs (all kinds)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 months

26 W H O ’ S R E A L LY I N P RISO N F O R M A RIJU A N A ?
A SYSTEM THAT WORKS

Alternatives to incarceration

In recent years, jurisdictions across the nation have made enormous advances in the

way they handle drug cases. They have developed and implemented programs

specifically designed to help first­time drug offenders and give them a chance to

avoid incarceration. Based largely on the principles of demand reduction, the new

approaches provide more opportunities for early intervention, allowing people with

drug problems to get the help they need and reverse course before it’s too late.

“The Dell Dude”

Many judges today recognize that a second chance is sometimes all it takes to

convince small­time marijuana users to change their ways. The story of the “Dell

Dude”is a case in point. It illustrates not only how the system should work, but how

it regularly does.

In February 2003, actor Benjamin

Curtis, widely recognized for his role

as a computer company’s “hip”

television pitchman, was arrested in

New York City for criminal possession

of marijuana. The charge is defined

by the amount possessed, which in

this case was more than 25 grams

but less than 57 grams (two

ounces).59 

Under New York State law, if the

amount of marijuana is under 25

grams, offenders can be punished by

a fine ranging from $100 to $250 and/or a sentence of up to 15 days in jail,

depending on whether it is the first, second, or third offense.60 Because the amounts

in Curtis’s case fell into the higher category, the judge could have ordered a jail

sentence of up to three months and imposed a fine of up to $500. But because this

second chance is sometimes all

Many judges recognize that a

it takes to convince small­time

marijuana users to change

their ways.

W H O ’ S R E A L LY I N P RISO N F O R M A RIJU A N A ? 27
was his first offense, Curtis got a break. Under the terms of New York’s “adjournment

in contemplation for dismissal”(ACD) procedure, he did not have to plead guilty to

anything. He merely had to promise to stay out of trouble for one year. If he

managed that, the case against him would be dismissed.

Essentially a form of pretrial probation, ACD is typical of various alternative

sentencing strategies that are designed to keep casual or small­time offenders

out of the criminal justice system. At least 23 states offer similar plans offering

deferred prosecution in exchange for a promise not to violate the terms of the

probation. Some of these plans require that the defendant take anti­drug courses

or sign up for drug treatment. But if the offender stays clean and commits no

crimes for the prescribed time period, no further court appearance is necessary.

The matter is settled, the police fingerprint file destroyed. No jail time, no criminal

record—end of story.61

Drug Courts

Another promising alternative­sentencing approach comes in the form of the

nation’s growing network of drug courts. More than 1,000 of these innovative

dockets are currently in operation around the country, and another 400 are in

development.62 Established specifically to handle the swelling caseload of low­level

drug offenders, drug courts offer treatment and community service as alternatives

to incarceration to those who cooperate.

Although the concept has taken shape only within the past two decades, drug

courts already have demonstrated considerable success in helping people conquer

their drug problems and get back on their feet. To date, more than 312,000 adults

and juveniles have enrolled in drug court programs, and 70 percent of all

participants stick with the program to completion. Drug courts have helped some

3,500 parents regain custody of their children, and almost three­quarters of all

program participants have retained or found new employment.63

Many jurisdictions, encouraged by the success of adult drug courts, have launched

similar programs offering hope, treatment, and rehabilitation as alternatives to

incarceration for young drug offenders. As of July 2003, 275 juvenile drug courts

were in operation in 45 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam, and another 120

were being planned.64 In court systems that have juvenile drug court programs,

young offenders who have been identified as having alcohol or drug problems and

who have not been charged with violent or sex­related crimes are referred to a

designated judge. The judge oversees each case through regular, often weekly,

hearings with the defendant and a team that typically includes treatment

professionals and vocational experts.

28 W H O ’ S R E A L LY I N PRISON FOR MARIJUANA?
For offenders who play by the rules and follow the judge’s orders, the rewards can

be significant: They avoid time behind bars, their juvenile records are sealed or

wiped clean, and, perhaps most significant, they emerge from the program drug

free. In many cases, graduates step out into the world with healthier bodies and

minds, improved coping skills, and a new, brighter outlook on life.

WHO’S R E A L LY I N PRISON FOR MARIJUANA? 29
30 W H O ’ S R E A L LY I N PRISON FOR MARIJUANA?
CONCLUSION

In their criticism of the criminal justice system, marijuana legalizers claim that

thousands of people are imprisoned for marijuana “possession,” or, as they

sometimes phrase it, “for marijuana.” The implication is that these inmates are

otherwise law­abiding individuals arrested for nothing more than smoking a joint.

Their crime, goes the argument, was simply having in their possession a little bit

of dope.

Those protesting this “injustice”typically make their case by lumping together all

marijuana defendants regardless of the quantities involved and the nature or

seriousness of the conviction. And yet in doing so, they blur the critical distinction

between “simple possession”—a low­level criminal offense—and “simply

possessing,” a vague, all­encompassing term that can mean any possession,

including felony amounts. They also overlook the fact that many of those technically

serving time for marijuana possession were actually sent to prison on much more

serious charges.

Claims about disproportionately harsh sentences for those who violate marijuana

laws divert attention from the key point, which is this: The overwhelming majority of

people incarcerated for marijuana offenses are not occasional, casual, or first­time

users. Rather, they are criminals who have been found guilty of trafficking, growing,

manufacturing, selling, or distributing the drug, or who were convicted of multiple

offenses that happened to include a marijuana charge. Seldom does anyone in this

country go to prison for nothing more than smoking pot.

WHO’S R E A L LY I N PRISON FOR MARIJUANA? 31
32 W H O ’ S R E A L LY I N PRISON FOR MARIJUANA?
NOTES

1 Web site for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Libertarian Party.

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:KSb61ppJE2wJ:www.unlp.org/stuff/grass/wall%2520of%2

520shame%2520iii.doc+seth+ferranti&hl=en&ie=UTF­8

2 An Interview with Seth Ferranti: Prisoner #18205­083, by Michelle Daugherty. Spank Magazine,

Summer 2000, as posted on Prisonerlife.com. 

http://www.prisonerlife.com/page_writings2.cfm?writingsID=68&WebpageID=

21&MemberID=51 

The American Dream: Free Enterprise, Seth M. Ferranti, #18205­083. Web site for the November

Coalition.

http://www.november.org/thewall/cases/ferranti­s/ferranti­s.html

3 I’m a Prisoner in the War on Drugs, By John Colapinto. Rolling Stone, May 28, 1998.

4 The American Dream: Free Enterprise, Seth M. Ferranti, #18205­083. Web site for the November

Coalition.

http://www.november.org/thewall/cases/ferranti­s/ferranti­s.html

5 United States of America v. Seth Michael Ferranti, Case #’s 1:91­CR00337­001 and 94­00122­A,

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division.

6 The Whitney Houston Rules, salon.com.

http://cobrand.salon.com/people/feature/2000/05/03/houston/index1.html

7 To Jail You Go, by Paul Armentano. The Mises Institute monthly, September 1999. 

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=7 

8 Your Government Is Lying To You (Again) About Marijuana: A Refutation of the Drug Czar’s “Open

Letter to America’s Prosecutors.”The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

http://www.norml.org/pdf_files/your_gov_is_lying.pdf

9 Time to End Smoke and Mirrors on Pot, by Margery Eagan. The Boston Herald, September 18, 1994.

10 Our New National Chief Therapist, by James Bovard. The Future of Freedom Foundation, 

October 2001.

http://www.fff.org/comment/ed1001f.asp

11 Portland, Oregon, NORML Web site: 

http://www.pdxnorml.org/Atlantic_Monthly_Reefer_Madness.html

WHO’S R E A L LY I N PRISON FOR MARIJUANA? 33
12 U.S. Code, Title 18, Chapter 227, Subchapter A, Sec. 3559(a)(6): Sentencing classification of offenses.

U.S. Code, Title 21, Chapter 13, Subchapter I, Part D, Sec. 844(a): Penalties for simple possession.

13 U.S. Code, Title 21, Chapter 13, Subchapter I, Part D, Sec. 844a: Civil penalty for possession of small

amounts of certain controlled substances.

Code of Federal Regulations, 28, Section 76.2 H.

Domestic Criminal Law Section, Chief Counsel’s Office, Drug Enforcement Administration.

14 The American Correctional Association.

15 Marijuana Decriminalization: What Does it Mean in the United States? National Bureau of 

Economic Research, NBER Working Paper Series, May 2003.

16 Illicit Drug Policies: Selected Laws from the 50 States. ImpacTeen Illicit Drug Team, 

Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University, 2002.

http://www.impacteen.org/generalarea_PDFs/IDTchartbook032103.pdf

17 Unpublished data on state marijuana laws through December 2001 by the MayaTech Corporation,

under subcontract for the Robert Wood Johnson­supported ImpacTeen initiative.

18 Ibid.

19 The Cannabis Times, Newsletter of New Hampshire NORML, the National Organization for the

Reform of Marijuana Laws, July 2003, Volume 5, Issue 53.

http://www.thecannabistimes.com/tct_current_issue.htm

20 Libertarian Party Press Releases, October 21, 2000.

http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=163

21 Drug Policy News, Drug Policy Alliance.

http://www.lindesmith.org/news/pressroom/pressrelease/pr102902.cfm

22 Change the Climate, Inc.

http://www.changetheclimate.org/campaigns/08_02_dc/

23 Time to End Smoke and Mirrors on Pot, by Margery Eagan. The Boston Herald, September 18, 1994.

24 2002 Federal Sentencing Guideline Manual, U.S. Sentencing Commission.

http://www.ussc.gov/2002guid/tabcon02.htm 

34 W H O ’ S R E A L LY I N PRISON FOR MARIJUANA?
25 Montana Code Annotated 2003; 45­9­101. Criminal distribution of dangerous drugs; 45­9­102.

Criminal possession of dangerous drugs; 45­9­103. Criminal possession with intent to distribute.

Mississippi Code of 1972; Sec. 41­29­139, Prohibited acts; penalties.

Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 453, Controlled Substances General Provisions, NRS 453.339.

Trafficking in controlled substances: Marijuana.

Oklahoma Statutes, Title 63, Sec. 2­401 and 2­415.

Texas Statutes, Title 6, Subtitle C, Chapter 481, Subchapter D, Sec. 481.121, Possession of Marihuana.

26 NORML’s State Guide to Marijuana Penalties.

http://www.onlinepot.org/legal/normlstatelaws.htm

27 Louisiana State Laws, revised statute 40:981.3.

http://www.legis.state.la.us/tsrs/tsrs.asp?lawbody=RS&title=40§ion=981.3

28 “Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997.” BJS Special Report, January

1999, NCJ 172871.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/satsfp97.pdf

29 “Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997.” BJS Special Report, January

1999, NCJ 172871.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/satsfp97.pdf

30 “Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997.” BJS Special Report, January

1999, NCJ 172871: 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/satsfp97.pdf

31 Unpublished BJS estimates based on the 1997 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional

Facilities, National Archive of Criminal Justice Data. For a public­use copy of the survey data, see

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/SISFCF/index.html

32 Unpublished BJS estimates based on the 1997 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional

Facilities, National Archive of Criminal Justice Data. For a public­use copy of the survey data, see

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/SISFCF/index.html

WHO’S R E A L LY I N PRISON FOR MARIJUANA? 35
33 Unpublished BJS estimates based on the 1997 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional

Facilities, National Archive of Criminal Justice Data. For a public­use copy of the survey data, see

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/SISFCF/index.html

Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2002, Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, April 2003, NCJ

198877.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pjim02.pdf

Prisoners in 2002, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2003, NCJ 200248.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p02.pdf

34 “Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997.” BJS Special Report, January

1999, NCJ 172871.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/satsfp97.pdf

Unpublished BJS estimates based on the 1997 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional

Facilities, National Archive of Criminal Justice Data. For a public­use copy of the survey data, see

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/SISFCF/index.html

35 Unpublished BJS estimates based on the 1997 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional

Facilities, National Archive of Criminal Justice Data. For a public­use copy of the survey data, see

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/SISFCF/index.html

36 U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2001 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics.

http://www.ussc.gov/ANNRPT/2001/SBTOC01.htm

http://www.ussc.gov/ANNRPT/2001/table33.pdf

37 Pot Violators Comprise Largest Percentage of Federal Drug Offenders, Department of Justice Study

Shows. NORML News, August 30, 2001.

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4341

38 U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2001 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics.

http://www.ussc.gov/ANNRPT/2001/SBTOC01.htm

http://www.ussc.gov/ANNRPT/2001/table33.pdf

Unpublished figures from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2001 Datafile, USSCFY01.

39 Behind Bars: Substance Abuse and America's Prison Population. The National Center on Addiction

and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University, January 1998.

http://www.casacolumbia.org/pdshopprov/files/5745.pdf

36 W H O ’ S R E A L LY I N PRISON FOR MARIJUANA?
40 U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2001 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics.

http://www.ussc.gov/ANNRPT/2001/SBTOC01.htm

http://www.ussc.gov/ANNRPT/2001/table33.pdf

Unpublished figures from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2001 Datafile, USSCFY01.

41 2002 Federal Sentencing Guideline Manual.

http://www.ussc.gov/2002guid/tabcon02.htm

42 U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2003 Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Chapter 3 Part C – Obstruction,

§3C1.1. Obstructing or Impeding the Administration of Justice. 

http://www.ussc.gov/2003guid/3c1_1.htm

43 U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2002 Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Chapter 5, Part A: 

Sentencing Table.

http://www.ussc.gov/2002guid/5a.htm

U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2002 Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Chapter 2, Part D: 

Offenses Involving Drugs.

http://www.ussc.gov/2002guid/2d1_1.htm

Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. Sentencing Commission.

44 Unpublished BJS estimates based on the 1997 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional

Facilities, National Archive of Criminal Justice Data. For a public­use copy of the survey data, see

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/SISFCF/index.html

45 Nevadans Against Legalizing Marijuana.

National Families in Action, Drug Abuse Update Online.

http://www.nationalfamilies.org/update/dau­090302.html

46 Web site for Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), Donovan Adams.

http://www.famm.org/Fed%20men/donovan_adams_profile.htm 

47 United States of America vs. Donovan James Adams, Case #CR 97­20­BLG­JDS, United States

District Court for the District of Montana, Billings Division.

48 Web site for Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), Donovan Adams.

http://www.famm.org/Fed%20men/donovan_adams_profile.htm

49 United States of America vs. Donovan James Adams, Case #CR 97­20­BLG­JDS, United States

District Court for the District of Montana, Billings Division.

WHO’S R E A L LY I N PRISON FOR MARIJUANA? 37
50 Reefer Madness, by Eric Schlosser. The Atlantic Monthly, August 1994, Vol. 274, Issue 2.

Marijuana and the Law, by Eric Schlosser, The Atlantic Monthly, September 1994, Vol. 274, Issue 3;

pages 84­94.

51 United States of America vs. Mark Young, Case #IP 91­57­CR­08, United States District Court for the

Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

52 United States of America vs. Mark Young, Case #IP 91­57­CR­08, United States District Court for the

Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

53 Marijuana and the Law, by Eric Schlosser. The Atlantic Monthly, September 1994, Vol. 274, Issue 3;

pages 84­94.

54 United States of America vs. Mark Young, Case #IP 91­57­CR­08, United States District Court for the

Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

55 United States of America vs. Mark Young, 997 F.2d 1204 (7th Cir. 1993), 34 F.3d 500 (7th Cir. 1994),

66 F.3d 830 (7th Cir. 1995).

56 United States of America vs. Mark Young, Case #IP 91­57­CR­08, United States District Court for the

Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

57 Felony Sentences in State Courts, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, June 2003, NCJ 198821.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fssc00.pdf

58 U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2001 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics.

http://www.ussc.gov/ANNRPT/2001/SBTOC01.htm

http://www.ussc.gov/ANNRPT/2001/Table14.pdf

59 The People of the State of New York against Benjamin Curtis. Criminal Court of the City of New

York, County of New York, Docket Number 2003NY010544.

60 Get the Facts: Marijuana/Hashish. Published by the New York State Office of Alcoholism &

Substance Abuse Services.

http://www.crisny.org/government/ny/marijuana.html

38 W H O ’ S R E A L LY I N PRISON FOR MARIJUANA?
61 New York State Consolidated Laws, Article 215. Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal for

Purposes of Referring Selected Felonies to Dispute Resolution. 

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?cl=25&a=34

Annual Report 2001, Commission of Investigation of the State of New York.

Opinion of the Court, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 00­1214, Alabama, Petitioner v.

LeReed Shelton on Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Alabama, May 20, 2002, pp. 15­16.

Process Evaluation of the Queens County Arrest Policies Project, Queens, NY, October 1999.

Chapter 4: Legislation and Rules Revision, Twenty­First Annual Report of The Chief Administrator of

the Courts for Calendar Year 1998, State of New York, p. 51. 

62 National Drug Court Institute.

http://www.ndci.org/courtfacts.htm

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Alcohol and Other Drugs Division.

63 National Drug Court Institute.

http://www.ndci.org/courtfacts.htm

64 Summary of Drug Court Activity by State and County, OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and

Technical Assistance Project, American University, November 7, 2003.

http://www.american.edu/spa/justice/publications/drgchart2k.pdf

Juvenile Drug Courts: Strategies in Practice, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Bureau of Justice Assistance, March 2003.

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/bja/197866.pdf

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Alcohol and Other Drugs Division.

65 Federal Drug Offenders, 1999, with Trends 1984­99. Bureau of Justice Statistics, August 2001, NCJ

187285:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fdo99.pdf

66 Federal Drug Offenders, 1999, with Trends 1984­99. Bureau of Justice Statistics, August 2001, NCJ

187285:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fdo99.pdf

WHO’S R E A L LY I N PRISON FOR MARIJUANA? 39
How to Order

This document is available online at www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov.

Additional copies may be obtained from the ONDCP Drug Policy Information

Clearinghouse by calling 1­800­666­3332, or by sending an e­mail to

ondcp@ncjrs.org.