Jump to content

Michigan Information For Cannabis Specific Statistics.


Timmahh
 Share

Recommended Posts

Q and I went on an easter egg hunt tonight. found some great eggs. here is one of them.

 

source:

Marijuana in Michigan 

Arrests, Usage, and Related Data

Jon Gettman , Ph.D.

The Bulletin of Cannabis Reform

www.drugscience.org

10/19/2009

 

Introduction

This state report is part of a comprehensive presentation of national, state, county, and local level data

on marijuana arrests in the United States.  The primary report in this collection is “Marijuana Arrests in

the United States (2007)”.

1

Additional details on marijuana arrests and related topics in Michigan are

available in the Marijuana Policy Almanac

2

, from which the data presented below has been excerpted.  

Arrest totals are based on Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program data; local data may differ due to

various reasons, including reporting procedures and data availability.

There were 19,691 arrests for marijuana offenses in Michigan in 2007, representing an arrest rate of 196

per 100,000, which ranks Michigan at number 44 in the nation.  There were an estimated 998,000 past

year marijuana users in Michigan during 2007.  Reconciling this estimate with the number of arrests for

marijuana offenses provides an arrest rate of 1,973 per 100,000 users, which ranks Michigan at number

45 in the nation.

In terms of overall severity of maximum sentences for marijuana possession, Michigan ranks number 19

in the nation (based on penalties for a first offense).  When it comes to penalties for just under 1 ounce

of marijuana, Michigan is ranked at number 3, along with 17 other states (because of similarities

between states there are only 12 rankings in this category).   Here are the penalties for possession of

various amounts of marijuana in Michigan:

Amount Max. Sentence Max. Fine

1 Ounce* 1 year $2,000  

2 Ounces 1 year $2,000  

3 Ounces 1 year $2,000  

4 Ounces 1 year $2,000  

(*To simplify comparisons, for some states this category covers amounts just under 1 ounce)

Marijuana possession arrests accounted for 84% of all marijuana arrests in Michigan during 2007.  

(Nationally, marijuana possession arrests account for 89% of all marijuana arrests.)  There were 16,512

arrests for marijuana possession in Michigan in 2007, and 3,179 arrests for marijuana sales.  The arrest

rate for marijuana possession in Michigan was 164 per 100,000 for 2007, while the arrest rate for

marijuana sales was 32.  Marijuana arrests also accounted for 56% of all drug arrests in Michigan during

2007.

                                                           

1

http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr7/bcr7_index.html

2

http://www.drugscience.org/States/US/US_home.htm

 

Here is an overall scorecard for how Michigan ranks nationally in terms of marijuana arrests, penalties, and marijuana use.

Category Ranking

Maximum Sentences for Possession 19

Maximum Sentence for Possession of 1 ounce 3

Arrest Rate per 100,000 population 44

Arrest Rate per 100,000 users 45

Past Month Users (Pct.) 13

Past Year Users (Pct.) 11

Past Month Users Age 12 – 17 (Pct.) 13

Past Year Users Age 12 – 17 (Pct.) 17

This report provides a summary of the following topics related to marijuana arrests in Michigan:  (1)

related national trends, (2) trends in Michigan marijuana arrests and marijuana use, (3) the costs of

marijuana arrests in Michigan, (4) statistics on past month and past year marijuana use in Michigan by

age group, (5) county level rankings in marijuana arrests and rates, and (6) drug treatment admissions

for alcohol, marijuana, and other drugs.  Extensive detail on these and related subjects, including local

agency marijuana arrest data and historical data, is available in table format in the on line Marijuana

Policy Almanac

3

for Michigan and other states, as well as similar national data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

more

The arrest rate for marijuana offenses (possession and sales combined) in the United States has

increased from 260 per 100,000 in 2003 to 290 in 2007.  This represents an average annualized change

of +2.19% per year.

The number of past year marijuana users in the United States has remained relatively stable during this

period, changing from 25.5 million annual users in 2003 to 25.2 million annual users in 2007.  The

number of past month users has also remained the same, 14.6 million in both 2003 and 2007.  

On a percentage basis, annual marijuana use was reported by 10.78% of the population in 2003 and

10.22% in 2007, while monthly use was reported by 6.18% in 2003 and 5.92% in 2007.

 

Consequently, at the national level over the last five years, an increase in marijuana arrests of 2.93% per

year has resulted in an average annualized decrease in the number of annual marijuana users of 0.21%

per year and a similar decrease in the prevalence of annual marijuana use of 0.03% per year.

2) Marijuana Arrest and Use Trends in Michigan (2003 – 2007)

Marijuana arrests in Michigan increased from 17,720 in 2003 to 19,691 in 2007.  The arrest rate in 2003

was 176 per 100,000 while in 2007 it was 196.

Compared to a 2.93% average annual increase in marijuana arrests nationally, marijuana arrests in

Michigan increased by 2.13% per year.  (While the arrest rate nationally increased 2.19% annually in this

period, in Michigan the arrest rate changed by 2.25% per year.)

During this same period, the number of annual marijuana users in Michigan decreased from 1,045,000

in 2003 to 998,000 in 2007.  This was an average annualized change of ‐0.92% per year.  The number of

monthly marijuana users decreased from 596,000 in 2003 to 589,000 in 2007, which produced an

average annualized change of ‐0.24%.

 

I need to check the state census for these years. I believe the decrease in users, will have a direct correlation of the decline in overall state residents for the corresponding years.

 

 

3) The Costs of Marijuana Laws

The above comparison of marijuana arrests and marijuana use provide a basis for evaluating the

benefits of marijuana laws.  Here are three perspectives that help frame the issue of evaluating the costs

of marijuana laws in Michigan.

a) Fiscal Costs.

The criminal justice system in Michigan cost $5.77 billion for 2006.  This includes state, county, and local

costs.  Here is the breakdown for those costs:

Police Protection $2.33  billion

Judicial and Legal Services $1.15  billion

Corrections $2.29  billion

Total $5.77  billion

         

The federal Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) provides a simple way of making a general

estimate of the criminal justice costs of drug‐related arrests.  Actually, estimating the costs of different

types of arrests is a very complicated challenge because of the differences between individual offenses

and, for example, the investigative and follow‐up work they require.  However the use of a percentage

basis method provides a general estimate of the costs associated with marijuana offenses.  The method

utilized by ONDCP is to (a) calculate the percentage of total arrests accounted for by drug arrests and

then (b) apply that percentage to total criminal justice system costs.

There were 353,335 arrests in Michigan in 2006.  There were 19,973 marijuana arrests that year,

accounting for 5.65% of all arrests in Michigan for 2006.  Consequently, according to this percentage

basis method of estimation, marijuana arrests cost $326.02 million in Michigan for 2006.Marijuana in Michigan

4

b) Opportunity Costs

Budgets are, out of necessity, about making choices.  This is especially true when resources are scarce,

such as when state and local governments are grappling with budget gaps between revenue and

program commitments.  Economists recognize opportunity costs as the consequences of making specific

budgetary decisions.   Providing funds for one program often means accepting less or no funds for some

other government activity.   For example, providing law enforcement with the obligation, or

opportunity, to make arrests for marijuana offenses deprives law enforcement of funds to apply to

other investigations and activities.

Law enforcement agencies publish statistics on their ability to resolve known offenses through the arrest

of criminal suspects.  After an offense is reported to the police, the objective is “cleared” by an arrest.  

Crime rates are based on the number of reported offenses.  Arrest rates are based on the number of

arrests. Clearance rates, usually provided for the most serious crimes, are based on the percentage of

known offenses cleared by arrest.  

Here are the 2007 clearance rates for serious crimes in Michigan:

       

Murder 38.10%

Rape 22.70%

Robbery 15.30%

Assault    31.70%

Larceny   13.70%

Motor Vehicle Theft 7.60%

All the above crimes 18.50%

Another significant aspect of evaluating law enforcement priorities concerns the growing economic

impact of what is referred to as “white‐collar crime.”  This is a broad term for what are essentially non‐

violent theft, including such crimes as fraud, identity theft, embezzlement, and securities fraud.  While a

great deal of media attention is devoted to law enforcement responses to street crimes, the economic

impact of these crimes is dwarfed by the magnitude of white‐collar crime, which is conservatively

estimated to have an impact of 10 times the value of street crimes.  

Marijuana arrests also divert law enforcement and criminal justice system resources from possession

and sales offenses involving other illicit drugs.  In 2007, marijuana arrests were 56% of all drug arrests in

Michigan.  Other drugs such as cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and synthetic narcotics such as

Oxycontin present far more serious threats to both individuals and the public.  These other illegal drugs

also have far more severe dependence liabilities than marijuana.  Here is a summary of drug arrests in

Michigan for 2007:

Drug Arrests Pct.

Opiates/Cocaine 9,788 28%

Marijuana 19,691 56%

Synthetic Narcotics 1,025 3%

Other Dangerous Drugs 4,201 12%

All Illicit Drugs 35,120 100%

 

The need to improve clearance rates for serious crime, to devote greater resources to white‐collar

crime, and to address the problems presented by more dangerous drugs all provide compelling reasons

for society to reconsider whether the opportunity costs of marijuana law enforcement are acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

c)  Social Costs

Marijuana arrests have a disproportionate impact on two demographic groups – young people and

minorities.  In many cases an arrest for marijuana possession makes a criminal out of an otherwise law‐

abiding individual.   It is not surprising that the majority of marijuana arrests involve teenagers and

young adults given the popularity of marijuana use with younger age groups.  However differences in

the arrest rates between whites and blacks cannot be explained by differences in marijuana use.  In

2007, for example, 10.5% of whites used marijuana in the last year while 12.2% of blacks reported such

use.  For marijuana use in the last month, the comparable figures were 6% of whites and 7.2% of blacks.  

These figures indicate that marijuana use by blacks is about 20% more prevalent than use by whites.  

While this is a statistically significant difference, it does not explain why arrest rates for marijuana

possession for blacks are three times higher nationally than for whites.  For example, the arrest rate per

100,000 for blacks in 2007 was 598, while for whites the arrest rate was 195.

Here are selected 2007 marijuana possession arrest rates for Michigan:

         

Group Pct of Arrests Arrest Rate

per 100,000

All individuals 100% 164

Males age 15 to 19 27% 1,176

Females age 15 to 19 4% 188

Males age 20 to 24 23% 1,084

Females age 20 to 24 3% 172

Whites 64% 128

Blacks 35% 399

   

4) Marijuana Use

There were 998,000 annual marijuana users in Michigan during 2007, of which 589,000 reported

marijuana use in the past month.  As noted above, the number of annual marijuana users in Michigan

decreased from 1,045,000 in 2003 to 998,000 in 2007.  This was an average annualized change of ‐0.92%

per year.  The number of monthly marijuana users decreased from 596,000 in 2003 to 589,000 in 2007,

which produced an average annualized change of ‐0.24%.   

There is general consensus that minors should not use alcohol, marijuana, or tobacco.  

 

 

According to the

most recent (2007) data 13.70% or 122,000 youths aged 12 to 17 in Michigan used marijuana in the past

year.  Of these, 7.60% (of the total population of this age group) or 67,000 youths used marijuana in the

past month.  Marijuana’s illegal status did not prevent these youths from having access to marijuana.  

Indeed, most teenagers report that marijuana is fairly easy to obtain.  One of the reasons marijuana

remains easy for youths to obtain is the profit incentive created by the illegal market.  Simply put,

teenagers make money by selling marijuana to other youths, which increases the availability of

marijuana among teens.  In this way, marijuana’s illegality makes it more widely and readily available to

teenagers.

 

Here are data on the prevalence and population estimates for marijuana use by various age groups in

Michigan:

Past Month Marijuana Use (2007)

Age Pct. Pop.

Age 12 to 17 7.60% 67,000

Age 18 to 25 18.60% 204,000

Age 26 + 5.00% 318,000

Total 7.00% 589,000

Past Year Marijuana Use (2007)

Age Pct. Pop.

Age 12 to 17 13.70% 122,000

Age 18 to 25 32.60% 356,000

Age 26 + 8.10% 520,000

Total 11.90% 998,000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5) County‐Level Rankings

Most marijuana arrests are made by local police agencies.  Individual agencies and officers exercise

considerable discretion regarding law enforcement, not just for marijuana offenses, but for a number of

offenses.  The number of marijuana arrests also varies because of differences in local populations and

the local prevalence of marijuana use.  Furthermore, some areas have exceptionally high arrest rates for

marijuana because they attract large visitor populations.  Because arrest rates are calculated by dividing

the number of arrests by the local resident population, numerous arrests of visitors to the area

artificially inflate the local arrest rate.  For a town with a relatively small population, the arrest of several

people driving through the town or on a nearby highway (such as an interstate) can produce a

comparatively high arrest rate for marijuana possession.

College towns may have large arrest rates for marijuana offenses because they have larger resident

populations of young adults, among whom marijuana use is more prevalent than in older populations.  

On the other hand, college towns may have lower arrest rates for marijuana possession, for example,

because of the discretionary policies of local police agencies.

Similarly, areas with large concentrations of African‐Americans may have higher arrest rates for

marijuana possession than other areas because law enforcement agencies throughout the United States

consistently arrest more blacks for marijuana possession than whites.

Areas such as beach towns, ski resorts, and natural resource areas also exhibit relatively high marijuana

arrest rates because they attract numerous visitors, including large numbers of young adults.

Finally, some areas have larger arrest rates for marijuana possession simply because marijuana use is

popular among the local residents; local police agencies have aggressive enforcement policies, or both.

County level marijuana possession arrest rates should be compared against the benchmark provided by

the statewide arrest rate of 164 in Michigan for 2007.  The following tables provide the leading counties

in Michigan for marijuana possession arrests, marijuana possession arrest rates, the possession arrest

rates for males aged 15 to 19, and the possession arrest rates for blacks:

Michigan County Leaders  

in Marijuana Possession Arrests (2007)

Wayne 3,869

Oakland 2,173

Macomb 1,441

Kent 1,165

Kalamazoo 599

Michigan County Leaders  

in Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates (2007)

Berrien 308

St Joseph 272

Gogebic 269

Gratiot 263

Kalamazoo 250

Michigan County Leaders  

in Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates, Males Aged 15 to 19 (2007)

Mackinac 2,164

Menominee 2,022

Berrien 2,012

Grand Traverse 1,839

St Joseph 1,829

Michigan County Leaders  

in Marijuana Possession Arrest Rates of Blacks (2007)

Menominee 2,904

Shiawassee 2,167

Gladwin 1,882

Clinton 1,690

Sanilac 1,603

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6) Drug Treatment Admission Trends

Data on drug treatment admissions is often used to justify devoting law enforcement resources to

making marijuana arrests.  The argument is two‐fold.  First, the number of marijuana‐related admissions

to drug treatment facilities is offered as evidence that marijuana is a dangerous drug.  Second,

marijuana arrests are justified because they force people to get treatment.

There are a number of flaws to this argument.  Alcohol is also responsible for a large proportion of drug

treatment admissions, however regulation is widely recognized as the most effective policy for

restricting access and reducing prohibition related crime.   Furthermore, despite well‐deserved public

concern over drug abuse and a general consensus that it should be reduced, drug abuse is not a crime.  

The legal basis for drug laws is that the manufacture, distribution, sale, and possession of drugs are

illegal.  It is unconstitutional to criminalize illness, mental health problems, or drug dependency in the

United States.  Alcoholism, for example, is not illegal.  Instead we hold alcoholics legally accountable for

their conduct, such as being drunk in public or driving while intoxicated.  Forcing individuals into drug

treatment programs is a dubious justification for making arrests of individuals for marijuana possession.  

Law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and other criminal justice professionals are not medically trained

or certified to diagnose drug dependency and make discretionary decisions about individual treatment

requirements.

However the most significant characteristic of marijuana‐related drug treatment admissions is that  a

majority of them in Michigan are the result of referrals from the criminal justice system, often as an

alternative to jail time as a sentence for a marijuana possession or sales offense.

During 2007, there were 10,856 admissions for drug treatment services in Michigan.  Of these, 51.26%

were the result of referrals from the Michigan criminal justice system.

Here is a breakdown of the majority of 2007 drug treatment admissions in Michigan:

Primary Drug Admissions Pct.

Alcohol 26,871 43%

Marijuana 10,856 17%

Cocaine 10,339 17%

Synthetic Narcotics 4,527 7%

Methamphetamine 373 1%

All Admissions 62,578 100%

Sources:

Sentences for Marijuana Possession were obtained from:  ImpacTeen Illicit Drug Team. Illicit drug

policies: Selected laws from the 50 states. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University, 2002.

http://www.impacteen.org/generalarea_PDFs/IDTchartbook032103.pdf and updated from other

sources.  Rankings of sentences were calculated independently and are based on the maximum number

of days allowed by state law for the listed quantities of marijuana.  The overall ranking is based on a

weighted index for the four quantity levels.  The weighting used in this index was: 70% for penalties for

1 ounce and 10% each for the penalties for 2, 3, and 4 ounces.

All arrest and clearance data were obtained from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program.  

Data on drug use were obtained from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH); data on

drug treatment admissions were obtained from the Treatment Episodes Data Set (TEDS).  NSDUH and

TEDS are compiled and published by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

(SAMHSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  Data on Criminal Justice Service costs

were obtained from the Criminal Justice Expenditure and Employment Extracts Program (CJEE) of the

Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice.  More information on source data for this

report can be obtained at http://www.drugscience.org/States/Notes.htm.

 

 

 

Jackpot of legislative ammo, errr info! Nice work on the Egg Hunt Q-tipper!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More stats of interest

 

 

More than half of all the people arrested in the United States test positive for illegal drugs. Drug addiction can lead to increased property crime and robberies. Drug and alcohol abuse contribute to higher rates of domestic violence, child abuse and sexual violence. (National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, 2007).

[1:10:41 AM] T: more that 50% test positive

 

 

Drug use is more closely linked to robberty and property crime than to violent crime. Many addicts commit crimes to get money to buy drugs. In state prisons, those convicted of violent crimes are less likely to have used drugs than those convicted of property crimes. Yet at least a quarter of men who commit acts of domestic violence also have drug abuse problems. Woman who are drug addicts are more likely to be victims of abuse. (Ibid.)

 

 

In the 2004 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correction Facilities, 32% of State prisoners and 26% of Federal prisoners said they had committed their current offense while under the influence of drugs. Among State prisoners, drug offenders (44%) and property offenders (39%) reported the highest incidence of drug use at the time of the offense. Among Federal prisoners, drug offenders (32%) and violent offenders (24%) were the most likely to report drug use at the time of their crimes. (Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 2006).

[1:13:29 AM] T: In 2004, 17% of State prisoners and 18% of Federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs. (Ibid.)

 

 

In 1998, Americans spent $66 billion on illegal drugs, with $39 billion being spent by consumers on cocaine (Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2000)

 

 

In 1999, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported an estimated 1,577,100 arrests for drug abuse violations in the United Sates (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2000).

 

 

In 1999, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported an estimated 1,577,100 arrests for drug abuse violations in the United Sates (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2000).

[1:15:28 AM] T: and dig this bunny muffin.

[1:15:34 AM] T: Attempts to deter drug use through punishment fail because they do not address the complex causes of drug abuse, which begins within the context of family problems and peer deviant behavior. One characteristic necessary for successful programs is continuing, comprehensive aftercare in the community. This reduces the chances that someone will be arrested and convicted again (National Institute of Justice, 2008).

[1:16:23 AM] T: these stats are from the National Center for Victems of Crime

[1:16:48 AM] T: http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32348

 

 

 

Conclusion

Drug use and criminal behavior certainly seem to be correlated. The evidence indicates that:

 

Drug users are more likely than nonusers to commit crimes,

Arrestees and inmates were often under the influence of a drug(s) at the time they committed their offenses, and

Drug trafficking and distribution generate violence.

Yet, without more evidence, it is impossible to say quantitatively how much drugs influence the occurrence of crime. However, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is developing an enhanced reporting system, the National Incident-Based Reporting System, that would involve reporting all crimes committed during any offense--currently, an incident is reported in terms of its relationship to the most serious offense only. The enhanced reporting system will provide more quantitative evidence of how many crimes are actually drug-related (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Fact Sheet, 1994).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

more from Q

 

 

 

(2009, 2008, 2007, 1973 - crime - drug arrests) In 1973, there were 328,670 arrests logged in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) for drug law violations.

 

In 2007, that number rose to 1,841,182 drug law violation arrests, representing a +460.2% increase during that thirty-four year span. Arrests concerning alcohol violations included 1,427,494 for Driving under the influence, 633,654 for liquor law violations, and 589,402 for drunkenness. Also in 2007, there were a reported 597,447 arrests for all violent crimes and 1,610,088 arrests for all property crimes, out of a total 14,209,365 arrests for all offenses.

 

The 2008 arrests for drug law violations equaled 1,702,537, a decline of -7.5% over those for 2007. Alcohol violations accrued 1,483,396 arrests for Driving under the influence, 625,939 for liquor law violations, and 611,069 for drunkenness. In 2008, there were a reported 594,911 arrests for all violent crimes, 1,687,345 arrests for all property crimes, and 14,005,615 arrests for all offenses.

 

In 2009, arrests for drug law violations declined slightly (-2.3%) to 1,663,582. A small decrease also occurred in alcohol violations to 1,440,409 for Driving under the influence, 570,333 for liquor law violations, and 594,300 for drunkenness. Violent crime arrests in 2009 equaled 581,765, with 1,728,285 arrests for property crimes. Arrests for all offenses totaled 13,687,241 down -2.3% over 2008.

 

 

 

 

Drug abuse violations 01 - 08

37,424

35,361

33,671

33,366

34,326

36,241

35,120

34,646

 

..................2010 under 18 and all ages

Drug abuse violations........3,237.....34,513

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

more of my eggs you older guys better drop the viagra and pick up the bengay. hold on to your tighty whitey's for this one

 

 

According to a study recent article in the medical journal Pediatrics, approximately one out of every three 23 year-olds have been arrested or taken into police custody at least once for a non-traffic offense. Researchers analyzed data from the years 1997 to 2008 and determined that between 25% and 41% of 23 year-olds have had this type of contact with the police. This is a rise from the figure of 22% that was calculated in 1965.

 

 

Criminologists offer many reasons for the increase in the arrest rate of American youth including arrests in Michigan. “The criminal justice system has clearly become more aggressive in dealing with offenders (particularly those who commit drug offenses and violent crimes) since the 1960’s,” write the study’s authors. The study was published in Pediatrics in hopes that pediatricians can influence their patients to stay out of trouble.

 

Incarceration Rates Growth Causes

This is from the Prison Policy Initiative, feb 2012.

 

(New) The State of Sentencing 2011 [PDF] Sentencing Project. February, 2012. "During 2011, state legislatures in at least 29 states adopted 55 criminal justice policies that may contribute to continued population reductions and address the collateral consequences associated with felony convictions."

(New) Old Behind Bars the Aging Prison Population in the United States, [PDF] Human Rights Watch. January, 2012. "Between 1995 and 2010, the number of state and federal prisoners age 55 or older nearly quadrupled (increasing 282 percent), while the number of all prisoners grew by less than half (increasing 42 percent). There are now 124,400 prisoners age 55+."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bureau of Justice Statistics recently reported the number of people in

prison declined in 2010 for the first time since 1972; state and federal prison

populations fell by more than 9,200 between 2009 and 2010, a decline of

0.6%. Currently, more than 7.1 million men and women are under some form of

correctional supervision. The majority of persons – 4.8 million – under criminal

justice supervision are in the community on probation or parole, while 2.2 million

are incarcerated in prison or jail. The United States continues to maintain the

highest rate of incarceration in the world at 731 per 100,000 population.

 

in a shocking revolation of these last statistics.

 

add that with the quadrupleing of those in jail over 55 and it is a SHOCKING statistic.

while those incarcerated grew in age 4 fold, overall incarceraton populatoin fell by less than 1%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Between 1990 and 1997, the juvenile arrest rate for drug abuse violations increased 145%. The rate declined 21% between 1997 and 2007, but the 2007 rate was still almost double the 1990 rate.

 

would be good to find breakdowns of info in drugs and years ie juv arrest in 97 and 07, the diff between just cannabis arrests and "all other Drug arrests.

think we found this info, just have to go thru the info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More Fodder for the Fire. This is info I was able to dig up

 

Michigan Stats from FBI yr 2010. 1st nubmer is 18 and younger, 2nd number is all ages for each line.

 

 

State Total all classes .............................. 30,678 275,769

Violent crime2 ...................................... 1,850 13,152

Property crime2 ...................................... 9,107 35,262

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter.................. 14 187

Forcible rape......................................... 107 665

Robbery............................................... 655 2,567

Aggravated assault.................................... 1,074 9,733

Burglary.............................................. 1,563 6,211

Larceny-theft......................................... 6,851 26,782

Motor vehicle theft................................... 562 1,988

Arson................................................. 131 281

Other assaults........................................ 4,004 30,457

Forgery and counterfeiting............................ 17 764

Fraud................................................. 342 5,152

Embezzlement.......................................... 9 925

Stolen property; buying, receiving, possessing........ 354 1,799

Vandalism............................................. 911 3,406

Weapons; carrying, possessing, etc.................... 647 4,120

Prostitution and commercialized vice.................. 8 446

Sex offenses (except forcible rape and prostitution).. 252 1,010

Drug abuse violations................................. 3,237 34,513

Gambling.............................................. 11 118

Offenses against the family and children.............. 7 2,774

Driving under the influence........................... 452 34,882

Liquor laws........................................... 2,759 16,732

Drunkenness........................................... 6 348

Disorderly conduct.................................... 1,166 9,709

Vagrancy.............................................. 0 332

All other offenses (except traffic)................... 4,653 78,982

Suspicion Curfew and loitering law violations......... 0 0

Number of agencies.................................... 886

2010 estimated population............................. 9,249,545

 

in a quick comparrison from 2006 of perticular stats

 

Narcotic Laws state total 32,409

Driving Under Influence Alcohol/Narcotics 47,461

so while narcotic arrests have increased by 2000 arrests since the passing of the MMMA DUIDs have declined nearly 13,000 arrest since the same time

 

GRAND TOTAL - Adults (incl. age unknown) all crimes 302,169

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...