Marijuana profiling

Marijuana profiling

Though they use marijuana less, more blacks than whites are arrested for it, a new study shows.

Share

October 27, 2010

• 

  E-mail

• 

  Print

• 

  

  Text Size

la-ed-arrests-20101027

White people between the ages of 18 and 25 use marijuana at a higher rate than their black peers, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, so you would naturally assume that young white people would also have a higher arrest rate for marijuana possession than young black people. But that's not the case. A report released last week found that police in California's biggest cities arrest blacks for possession at four, five and even 13 times the rate of whites. It is this unequal enforcement of the marijuana laws — and the consequences for the African American community — that have led the California NAACP, along with the National Black Police Assn., to support Proposition 19. This page opposes Proposition 19, but regardless of whether the measure succeeds or fails, the racial inequity is real and should not continue unaddressed.

According to the new study, issued jointly by the California NAACP and the Drug Policy Alliance, blacks in Los Angeles are arrested for possession of marijuana at seven times the rate of whites; in San Diego, at six times the rate. In Torrance, the numbers are particularly striking, with blacks arrested at 13.8 times the rate of whites. Indeed, the phenomenon occurs in every county in the state and involves almost every police department. The upshot for those arrested, even if they don't end up in prison, is a permanent record that has lifelong consequences. Most marijuana possession arrests do not lead to long prison sentences these days, but having an arrest record and the stigma of being a "drug offender" negatively affects opportunities for employment and housing and higher education. Such information also is visible to credit agencies, licensing boards and banks. California recently downgraded the charge to an infraction — a positive step — but collateral damage is still likely; the low-income people most commonly arrested would have the most difficulty paying the fines for the infraction — and failure to do so would bring the charge back to a misdemeanor.

Why are blacks arrested at such disproportionate rates? The report concludes that it's not personal prejudice or racism on the part of police officers. The NAACP says it is the result of the long-standing strategy of saturating minority communities with officers who then overzealously stop and frisk people. Were such a strategy pursued in a white community, a high number of arrests would result there as well. The police say they are simply trying protect the citizens in high-crime areas.

Get the best in Southern California opinion journalism delivered to your inbox with our Opinion L.A. newsletter. Sign up »

Supporters of Proposition 19 say the solution is to legalize marijuana for all. But that's addressing a symptom, not the problem. The real culprit is not marijuana laws but policing practices that vary wildly from community to community. That's why Proposition 19 is not the answer.

Copyright © 2010, Los Angeles Times

• 

  E-mail

• 

  Print

• 

  Digg

• 

  Twitter

• 

  Facebook

• 

  Read This Later

•  

Comments (61)

Add / View comments | Discussion FAQ

Czechster at 3:41 PM October 27, 2010

Well isn't this interesting. In the late thirties California's own Newspaper Baron, Randolph Hearst, spear headed a movement to ban Hemp (Cannabis) so it would not compete with his forest plantations. Now we have some underling supporting the scam Hearst started some seventy years ago. Way to go L A Times, staying true to the boss and the hell with the people.

It was Hearst who coined the term Marijuana to cast ill feelings on the Mexicans and Blacks. His dirty work was carried on with the help of crooked politicians more that happy to collect under the table money. But you know nothing has changed in seventy years. The Rich get richer and the politicians become more crooked.

Blooch at 2:36 PM October 27, 2010

It's a pity.  I'm for Prop. 19 and it has the potential to win.  The problem is that the voter turnout necessary for this to happen simply won't take place.  The Europeans have a notion that the people in the US are too stupid and lazy to govern themselves and maybe there's a bit of truth in that, though I disagree.

You get the government that you are willing to support either by simply voting the party line or by not voting, which is a form of support by relinquishing control.  There are so many people who feel that not voting is a form of protest; it simply maintains the status quo.

I've heard so many people say, "Well, I don't want to waste my vote so I'm not going to vote Libertarian, Peace and Freedom or whatever."  These are the same people who whine about a lack of substantive change.

The Republicans and the Democrats are two sides of the same coin and perpetuate the worst problems that we have.  We really need a third (and forth) party alternative.  I just heard it said on Bloomberg, that, if the Republicans gain control of congress, that they are going to cut 100 billion dollars out of the budget.  Do you think these cuts will come out of the Defense industry or from Wall Street?  I don't think so.

I will vote for Prop. 19, hoping that it does pass.

BrunSteve at 2:16 PM October 27, 2010

@Leonardo - Two state that have the state-owned model are New Hampshire and Vermont. It's no big deal -- they do it so they can cut out the middleman and make more money. They operate just like any other liquor store.

If you're just opposed on principle, I certainly respect that, but state-run distribution does not necessarily mean it's going to be oppressive.

via latimes.com

Posted via email from Brian's posterous