Sunset Cincinnati's Marijuana Ordinance

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

When this law was before the Council’s Law and Public Safety Committee in March of last year, I sent every committee member a copy of a 2005 study by Edward M. Shepard and Paul Blackley of the Economics Department of LeMoyne College. They studied what effect increased marijuana penalties had on crime. Using data gathered from 1,300 counties and spanning a seven-year period, the authors concluded:

“The results suggest that marijuana arrests are associated with increases in
non-drug crime, including homicides [and] burglaries.”

The authors suggest several causes for the correlation between increased marijuana penalties and increased crime. For instance, in noting the correlation between increased marijuana penalties and increases in burglaries, they wrote:

“[T]wo effects may be at work. First, arrests for sales can be
expected to disrupt supply and lead to price increases. Users or other
sellers may therefore rely upon burglary to cope with these increases.
Second, if the risks of selling become too great for some, they may switch to
burglary as an alternative criminal activity…”

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

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

1. It would reduce the number of people coming to Cincinnati from Kentucky and Indiana to buy drugs.
2. It would allow police to do a more thorough search and reduce the number of guns on the street.
3. It would allow police to arrest more drug dealers and reduce crime.

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

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


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

Percent of Tickets By State - 2005

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

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

Percentage of Arrests by State - 2006

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

The number of people coming from Kentucky to buy marijuana has been reduced by 85 people, the number of people coming from Indiana to buy drugs had been reduced by 5 people, and the number of people coming from other states to buy drugs has been reduced by 5 – a total of 95 fewer people coming from other states to buy drugs. By percentage, the number of people coming from Kentucky and Indiana has dropped from 2.7% to 1.97% - or a drop of 0.73%

2. Has it reduce the number of guns on the street?
It is impossible to know how many illegal or unregistered guns are on the streets of Cincinnati at any one time. There is no way to poll people on this issue: “Pardon me, I’m conducting a survey. Do you possess an illegal firearm?”
But we can look at the number of crimes committed with guns in 2005, before the law went into effect and compare that number with data for 2006. The results:
Number of Guns Used in Crimes:

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

The number of guns used in crimes increased by 27.6% between 2005 and 2006. (These numbers reflect all types of guns, including handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc.)
The most common weapon carried by drug dealers is a handgun. Looking at the data for handguns only, we find:

Number of Handguns Used in Crimes

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

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

3. Has it reduced crime?

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

• Murder: 69 in 2005, 80 in 2006 (15.9% change)
• Rape: 61 in 2005, 64 in 2006 (4.9% change)
• Robbery: 717 in 2005, 1034 in 2006 (44.2% change)
• Aggravated Assault: 685 in 2005, 673 in 2006 (-1.8% change)
• Burglary: 833 in 2005, 889 in 2006 (6.7% change)
• Larceny: 2,926 in 2005, 2,882 in 2006 (-1.5% change)
• Auto Theft: 543 in 2005, 471 in 2006 (-13.3% change)
• Total: 5,834 in 2005, 6,093 in 2006 (4.4% change)
  Part 1 crimes have increased by 4.4%, including large increases in the murder and robbery rates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Green

Chair, Hamilton County Libertarian Party