NCJ Number
81298
Journal
Journal of Drug Issues Volume: 11 Issue: 4 Dated: (Fall 1981) Pages: 389-397
Date Published
1981
Length
9 pages
Annotation
This article evaluates official record studies of marijuana arrests and casts doubt on the widely accepted 'coincidental' explanation of police intervention.
Abstract
Two widely cited empirical studies, one done in Los Angeles (Morton et. al., 1968) and the other for the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse (Johnson and Bogomolny, 1972) concluded that the coincidence hypothesis explained the vast majority of marijuana arrests. This hypothesis asserts that most arrests occur coincidentally, i.e., in the course of investigating some other legitimate, but nondrug concern of the police. A more recent publication of the National Commission data reasserted this interpretation (Johnson et al., 1977). However, the empirical base appears inadequate to sustain these assertions. Alternative explanations which allow for deliberate marijuana enforcement activity merit further consideration. Notes, tables, and 14 references are included. (Author abstract modified)