Experimenting With Smoking
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 10:52 PM

Mike is off to Russia for purely moral activity -- after all, it is International Women's Day -- so today's posting has fallen to moi.

The Guardian today features a collection of stories from some of their writers about their first experiences with such things as flying and high heels -- and smoking. Patrick Barkham had never smoked tobacco or marijuana, so at the age of 33 he went to Amsterdam to put his abstinent past behind him. His first smoke contained both tobacco and marijuana. Patrick's reluctance to inhale posed a barrier to achieving a high, but he eventually overcame that barrier, too. Some joints later, once the THC kicked in, Patrick became a slave to the drug, and he has not spent an unstoned moment since. Er, or maybe not:

I felt disappointed. Because I'd never done drugs, I had feared and expected everything - a spinning head, a creative mind, a hideous paranoia, a craven addiction and a desire to dance all night while dragons crossed the diamond sky with Lucy.

"It doesn't widen the doors of perception, it just slows you down enough to let you look in," I wrote [contemporaneously, in the notebook he had with him]. "This is what being stoned is about. I must get my bags from the hotel. Focus now. The end."

What an awful experience for Patrick. It is a good thing that the US arrests more than 700,000 folks per year for pot possession.

Labels: abstinence, arrests, Britain, marijuana

 
Be careful of those bread rolls if you are flying to Dubai
- posted by Michael @ 8:42 PM

Looks like Dubai might also have the need to fill up some prison cells (see this post for March 6). "News of the Weird" for this week reports:

In February, a court in Dubai ... sentenced Briton Keith Brown, 43, to the standard four-year minimum term in prison for violating the country's extreme "zero tolerance" drug laws, even though the only drug found was a "speck" (0.003 grams) of cannabis caught in the tread of his shoe and discovered only because the Dubai airport uses sophisticated drug-detection equipment.

My guess is that they discovered it because they make people take off their shoes as they go through airport security. Maybe that was the idea of that procedure to begin with. The same little article also said that "[p]reviously, a Canadian man was imprisoned for possession of three poppy seeds (from a bread roll he had eaten at Heathrow Airport in London) that had fallen into his clothing as he prepared for a flight to Dubai." What a country!

[Vice Squad first covered the Dubai airport incidents in early February. -- JL]

Labels: arrests, drugs, zero tolerance

 
Vacant Cells -- What Is To Be Done?
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 10:35 PM

Crack offenders who received ridiculously long sentences -- ridiculous in comparison with similar offenders of the cocaine (but non-crack) variety, and more ridiculous (for the non-violent offenders) relative to any reasonable standard of justice -- are qualifying for "early" release from prison. But nature abhors a vacuum -- who can be recruited to fill the vacated prison cells?

Hmmm, how about khat offenders! Sure, khat is legal in benighted parts of the world, such as the UK, but in the good ol' USA, we jealously guard our right to arrest khat possessors. Now how to get these local khatheads into federal prison? Well, that's what those multi-jurisdictional drug task forces were created for, no?

[Update: Pennsylvania gets in on the jailing khatheads craze.]

Labels: arrests, khat, sentencing

 
Europe v. US Drug Arrests, 2003
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 7:56 PM

It is a happy coincidence that 5 major European countries -- Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain -- in combination, have about the same population as the US: around 300 million people. In 2003, the US arrested some 1,678,192 people for "drug abuse violations." Reported drug law offenses for 2003 in the 5 European countries: about 719,000.

Labels: arrests, drugs, Europe

 
Becker and Posner on Drunk Driving...and Vice More Generally
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 10:58 PM

In late December the Becker-Posner blog looked at drunk driving in the US. Professor Becker suggested that drunk driving is significantly underpunished. Judge Posner thinks it might make more sense just to punish those drunk drivers who actually cause harm to others:

If there are 1.4 million annual arrests for drunk driving, and if we assume realistically that this is only a fraction of the actual incidents of drunk driving, yet only 2,000 innocent people are killed by drunk drivers, then it follows that most drunk driving is harmless. Why then punish it with arrests and severe penalties? Why not just punish those drunk drivers who cause deaths or injuries to nonpassengers?

One point that I might add is that the probability of being arrested given that you drive drunk seems to be quite low in the US: perhaps a chance of 1 in 200. [Update: An analysis (99-page pdf) using more recent data, and the new "national" Blood Alcohol Content standard of .08, puts the likelihood that a drunk driver will be arrested in the US at about 2%.]

The Becker-Posner blog has become a leading source for vice policy analysis. The second half of 2006 has featured, in addition to the drunk driving commentary, the following topics:

Internet Gambling -- August 2006

Doping in Sports -- August 2006

Taxing Fat -- October 2006

Legalizing Polygamy -- October 2006

Advertising and Obesity of Children -- December 2006

Labels: alcohol, arrests, driving

 
Recent US Prostitution Arrests
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 5:21 PM

In some benighted countries, prostitution is legal; this is the case in such backwaters as Germany, Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, parts of Nevada, and so on. But in the more advanced regions of the US, we have learned that arresting many of our friends and neighbors is the appropriate way to regulate prostitution. In recent days, we have managed to nab...

five folks in Naples, Florida; twenty-four folks in Longview, Texas; eight folks in Sanford, Florida; two folks in Charlotte, North Carolina; eleven folks in Raleigh, North Carolina; twelve folks in Paramus, New Jersey; five folks in Hamilton, Ohio; and so on. Month after month after month.

Note: In Canada and the UK, prostitution per se is legal, but solicitation and related activities remain criminalised.

Labels: arrests, prostitution

 
US Prostitution Arrest Statistics
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 7:57 PM

Scripps Howard News Service released a report today concerning anti-prostitution enforcement in the US. The report notes the extreme variability across jurisdictions in the effort devoted to policing prostitution, and in the gender of those arrested. Further, street prostitution is more likely to be targeted than call girl operations. Perhaps surprisingly, "[f]ew arrests were reported in so-called Bible Belt states like Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Virginia. But less conservative places like Illinois, Nevada and New Jersey lead the nation in the rate of prostitution arrests." Here's another brief excerpt from an article, linked above, that draws on the report:

The Scripps Howard study examined prostitution arrest rates for 269 police departments, comparing the number of arrests in 2002 to the size of the population under each police jurisdiction. Nationally, there was an average of 46 prostitution-related arrests for every 100,000 people.

That rate varied from as high as 609 arrests per 100,000 in one of New Jersey's gritty suburbs south of New York to less than one arrest per 100,000 in San Diego County.

In absolute numbers, Vice Squad's base of Chicago leads the way, with more than 5,500 prostitution-related arrests in 2002.

The study further reveals the unreliability of FBI arrest stats on prostitution and commercialized vice. In Fairfax County, Virginia, of the 94 arrests claimed by local police in 2002, the FBI recorded but....four. "FBI crime statistics are based on voluntary cooperation by local law-enforcement groups. As a result, information is frequently incomplete since many local departments choose not to cooperate." So what is one to make of the FBI claim that the number of prostitution and commercial vice arrests in the US in 2003 was a bit over 75,000?

Labels: arrests, Chicago, prostitution

 
Tolerate Prostitution? No, No, Yes, No
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 4:41 PM

In a major reform of commercial sex laws, the British government has proposed prostitution tolerance zones, as well as, perhaps, legalized brothels. But Birmingham has signaled its own zero tolerance approach, by golly:

Councillor Sue Anderson, chairwoman of the city council members' panel on prostitution and Cabinet member for social care and health, said local agencies wanted a zero tolerance approach to prostitution.

She said: "We are committed to addressing any activity surrounding prostitution which causes harm, nuisance and distress.

"The harm caused by both on and off street prostitution is unacceptable and we support a zero tolerance approach."

She continued: "We are recommending that civil and criminal law should be used effectively to tackle pimps, prostitutes, kerb crawlers, users and those who groom the vulnerable for prostitution.

"Where appropriate, legal powers should be strengthened and made more effective."

A crackdown? Hey, I hadn't thought of that -- that should cure any problems associated with prostitution.

In keeping with the special relationship between the US and Britain (or, OK, Birmingham), the US Army in Korea is adopting its own zero tolerance approach to prostitution:

YONGSAN GARRISON, South Korea -- Nearly 400 U.S. servicemembers in South Korea have been punished this year for offenses related to prostitution, and military commanders promise continued efforts to end any activity associated with the sex trade or human trafficking, the top U.S. officer in South Korea said.

"Zero tolerance means exactly that. We're not going to tolerate behavior which is dehumanizing, demoralizing and illegal. That’s always been the military’s intent," U.S. Forces Korea commander Gen. Leon J. LaPorte said in an interview last week with Stars and Stripes.

Now don't get me wrong -- it isn't like the US armed forces haven't always had zero tolerance for, er, commercial vice:

LaPorte also dismissed the notion that the military has lately increased its focus on the issue.

"I wouldn't say that it's something newly emphasized because it has always been the position of the U.S. military — clearly it's been the position of this command — that we don't support this kind of activity," he said.

Liverpool, though, is sticking with its something-greater-than-zero tolerance approach. But they are calling their special areas managed zones, not tolerance zones:

A tolerance zone is where sex workers can work without interference from the authorities. A managed zone would see health workers working with vice girls and include measures such as drop-in centres.

Meanwhile, back in the US, the arrest-our-way-out-of-this-problem approach goes from victory to victory: 85 arrests in Oakland, 100 arrests (for prostitution and drugs) in Orange County, Florida, and so on, and so on.

Labels: arrests, Britain, harm reduction, Korea, prostitution, zero tolerance

 
Coerced Treatment and Berkeley's Proposition Q
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 4:53 PM

The loyal Vice Squad reader will know that I believe that private, adult "vice" should, in general, not be criminalized. For that reason, I am not a big fan of coerced treatment programs, where an arrested individual, for instance, is given a choice between jail or treatment. The decision by an adult to seek treatment for any medical problem generally should not be coerced by the state, in my opinion. Nevertheless, given our current prohibition on some drugs and prostitution, the option to pursue treatment in lieu of prison is undoubtedly viewed as attractive by many arrestees, and I would probably not want to see that option curtailed, absent wider changes in vice policy.

Whew. All that by way of introduction to an editorial against Proposition Q, the Berkeley ballot initiative that would make prostitution enforcement a very low priority for the Berkeley police, among other things. Vice Squad noted before that the possibility of vice tourism (and the public nature of the solicitation that is a chief target of enforcement) might mean that even a supporter of prostitution legalization could oppose this measure. But the linked article does not take that approach. What is does offer, though, is an intelligent (if, to my mind, unconvincing) case against the Proposition, and one that relies to some extent on the "success" of coerced "treatment":

The best way to help street prostitutes is to help them get out of prostitution, and the best way to help them to get out of prostitution is law enforcement. Berkeley has a successful court diversion program, in which a judge offers street prostitutes who've been arrested for solicitation the options of going to jail or getting professional help through Options Recovery Services. This city-funded program helps women mend their lives, reunite with their families, and find meaningful work that will set them on the road to self-respect and independence. Options Recovery Services has had a 65 percent success rate in getting people off the street and off drugs.

Labels: arrests, California, prostitution, treatment

 
As Vice Crackdowns Go, Maybe Not a Bad One
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 4:33 PM

Vice Squad, not a big fan of criminalizing consensual adult behaviors of what used to be called the "victimless" variety, hasn't been all that complimentary towards the ongoing anti-prostitution crusade in South Korea. How many people have been caught up in the Korean police's commercial sex net?

Police have rounded up 4,365 people for engaging in the sex trade during the one-month crackdown, which began on Sept. 23. The 2,352 men caught for buying sex accounted for 54 percent, followed by 849 brothel owners with 19 percent. 660 sex workers came in third with 15 percent.

More than 4,000 arrests? Actually, no. The overwhelming majority of people "rounded up," whatever that means, are not arrested! "Among those 4,365 violators, police have requested arrest warrants for a total of 171 people, including 100 brothel owners, 62 male customers and four prostitutes." Maybe the US should consider this approach for the more than 1.5 million people rounded up annually as fodder for the drug prohibition machine.

Labels: arrests, Korea, Prohibition, prostitution

 
Law Enforcement Breakthrough!
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 3:31 PM

You see, what we'll do is, see, whenever we arrest some crook, we'll itemize his pornography collection, or if we are at a crime scene, we'll note all the pornography in the vicinity! 'Like gangs, people who use pornography have associated traits, and we'll define them so we can link them to crimes and pornography.' This will be bigger than DNA!

OK, I have absolutely no idea how this porn file is going to solve crime. (Hmmm, maybe crime reduction isn't the real purpose?) Click on the link and read the whole article, and maybe you can figure it out. Thanks to Drug WarRant's own Pete Guither for the pointer; in turn, Pete points to Tbogg.

Labels: arrests, Drug WarRant, policing, pornography

 
Prostitution Happenings
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 7:23 PM

(1) Yesterday marked another large protest by prostitutes in Korea against the current stepped-up anti-prostitution enforcement campaign. The police estimated that 2,800 prostitutes took place, though the crowd was swelled by 1,200 police. The protestors issued a statement, excerpts of which were reported in this news story:

"Women politicians and the women’s groups, which are purported to be helping us, do not have any interest in our day-to-day reality," the statement reads, "Don’t scapegoat us for your cause."

Prior to the larger protest, "about 150 blind masseuses" occupied a highway for half an hour, to demonstrate their concern about the enforcement pressure put on massage parlors -- and on their livelihoods.

(2) A 1995 court case made it illegal for Florida police to use wiretapping to combat prostitution. A Florida Supreme Court ruling issued Thursday did not overturn the earlier case, but nevertheless greatly watered it down, by allowing such wiretaps in racketeering or organized crime cases -- even if the racketeering is prostitution-related. The brief news report makes it appear that the exception will apply to lots of small-scale prostitution operations, and not just major organized crime syndicates.

(3) The parade of arrests of US citizens from all walks of life for prostitution offenses continues. In McAllen, Texas, the "Executive Director of the International Museum of Arts and Sciences (IMAS), is now accused of soliciting the sexual services of [an] undercover cop." Back in Florida, in Jacksonville, "Police announced Friday that some prominent community leaders were busted in a prostitution sting, including a college basketball coach and a former Jacksonville Sheriff's Office lieutenant." The police operation that yielded these arrests didn't even concern the unsavory public manifestation of streetwalking. Rather, it was a reverse sting involving a fake escort service the cops advertised in the paper; the arrestees allegedly arranged a meeting over the phone, and were arrested when they showed up at a hotel room. So now they and their families are publicly humiliated for behavior that is perfectly legal in much of the less-enlightened world. Kudos to the Jacksonville police for resources well-deployed. Part of the beauty of this brilliantly-conceived plan is that it won't even matter if the misdemeanor arrests get thrown out of court, say, on entrapment grounds, because the real punishment is the publicity of the arrest.

Labels: arrests, Korea, policing, prostitution

 
Vice Arrests by Race
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 7:45 PM

Primo Research Assistant Ryan Monarch recently brought me some statistics from the FBI's 2002 Crime in the United States. The report includes arrest figures, including a breakdown by race (White, Black, American Indian or Alaskan Native, and Asian or Pacific Islander). In the overall arrest figures, Whites constituted 70.7% of the arrests and Blacks constituted 26.9%. But among arrests of Blacks, one offense stands out, as that offense for which Blacks were most over-represented. Any guesses which offense category this is? The answer is...."Gambling," for which 68.3 percent of arrestees in the data are Black. For the inaptly named "drug abuse violations" (as opposed to the more apt "inappropriate drug law violations"), Whites constitute 66.2 percent of the arrestees while Blacks form 32.5%. The "victimless" nature of many vice activities that are nevertheless criminalized tends to increase the scope of discretion available to enforcement agents, of course.

Addendum: The three offense categories in which the Black percentage of arrestees is lowest are all alcohol-related: "Driving under the influence," 9.8 percent of arrestees are Black; "Liquor laws," 8.9 percent of arrestees are Black; and, "Drunkenness," 13.5 percent of arrestees are Black. Those three alcohol-related categories, not surprisingly, are also the three for which Whites most dominate the arrest statistics.

Labels: alcohol, arrests, gambling

 
Due Process is Only for Those Who are Not Arrested
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:18 AM

The city of Frederick, Maryland, has had such wonderful success with posting the pictures of those arrested -- not convicted, just arrested -- for prostitution-related offenses that it will expand its web-listing to drug arrestees! (Oddly, people who are arrested for crimes with actual victims, such as theft, appear to be exempt from Frederick's publicity machine.) There is no disclaimer on the website that these people have not been convicted, and are considered to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. (Other places that engage in such theatrics tend to include the disclaimer.) Of course, this measure must be purely informational, or to protect the public, because it would be unconstitutional to punish someone without due process of law. And what does Frederick's mayor say? "When asked if the project is meant to humiliate people, [the mayor] replied, 'Only for those who are arrested.'" And as we know, only guilty people are arrested. Here's the story, from the Baltimore Sun (registration required), and though I hesitate to add to this publicity, here's the Frederick website.

Labels: arrests, drugs, prostitution

 
The Berkeley Vote to "Decriminalize" Prostitution
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 4:21 PM

Measure Q is on the ballot in Berkeley:

If the initiative is approved by a simple majority Nov. 2, it would direct the City Council to lobby in favor of repealing state law that makes prostitution a crime. The Berkeley City Council in July went on record against the measure.

If passed, the measure would redirect city tax dollars to social services to help prostitutes, and direct police to make arrests of prostitutes and their customers the "lowest priority."

The quote comes from this article in the Tri-Valley Herald. Yesterday there was a conference of speakers opposed to the measure, with supporters demonstrating outside. Neither the supporters nor the opponents think that prostitutes should be arrested, however. Sort of makes you wonder who does support arresting prostitutes. Surely someone does, given the frequency with which arrests occur.

Berkeley faces a real problem here, in that a de facto decriminalization in one city, a city surrounded by areas of criminalized prostitution, very likely will lead to prostitution tourism. And as that tourism in turn will likely have public nuisances attached to it, Berkeley residents who favor prostitution legality or broader decriminalization might nevertheless find themselves opposing Measure Q. Isolated neighborhoods or communities surrounded by a sea of prohibition might do better with regulated, legal brothel prostitution or a more structured (and zoned) decriminalization a' la the Netherlands. These alternatives can reduce the public nuisance while still eliminating the risk of jail for at least some prostitutes.

Labels: arrests, California, Prohibition, prostitution

 
Thanks But No Thanks
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 7:47 PM

The Chicago Tribune has a confusing story today about arresting prostitutes, many of them transgendered, in Chicago's Lakeview neighborhood. The Trib seems to want to make us believe that these arrests are almost a favor to the alleged prostitutes, because they are given a card with information about available social services. But if that is the point, why bother with the arrests? Can't you just hand out the cards to passers-by? And what they really need, following the arrests, are legal services. This is almost a classic "I am from the government and I am here to help" story. The article also reports the relief of the police officer when the early morning rains didn't keep away the arrestees.

Labels: arrests, Chicago, prostitution

 
China Making the Internet Safe for Children
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 2:12 PM

Chinese government officials have discovered to their horror that pornographic images are available on the internet. They intend to fully cleanse the web by their National Day, October 1. Besides the requisite hundreds of arrests, measures taken so far have been to close 16,000 internet cafes and to stop issuing licenses for new cafes. Hail to the visionary leadership of the People's Republic of China! Thanks to them, China now has a glorious future...and it always will.

Labels: arrests, China, internet, policing, pornography

 
The War on Drugs in Bloomington, IN
- posted by Michael @ 10:52 PM

On Sunday, July 25, my local paper has initiated a three-part series on the war on drugs. Perhaps this was prompted in part by the fact (described in the first installment of the series) that drug arrests in Bloomington had gone up from 200-250 per year in the second half of 1990’s to almost 400 in 2003. (Bloomington has about 70,000 population, presumably not counting out-of-town students.) While most of the arrests during all these years have been for possession, the felony drug-dealing arrests have increased much more rapidly since 2000. Most, if not all, of this increase in arrests has been apparently due to stepped up enforcement. Interestingly, much of the cost of greater police resources devoted to drug enforcement has been paid for by federal grant money and sales of property seized in drug operations.

The second part of the series asks if the greater resources devoted to fighting the drug war have been worth it in terms of reduced crime. While it is true that violent crime reported to Bloomington Police Department has declined quite a bit (from about 150 cases per year in the late 1990’s to 69 in 2003) the role of the greater enforcement of drug laws in this trend is unclear. In fact, the article cites Peter Reuter of the RAND Corporation saying that he hadn’t heard of any scholarly finding linking increased cocaine (and presumably other drug-related) arrests to a reduction in violent crime. In fairness, the police do not claim any such proven link although they certainly hope it exists. The police do, however, suggest that the greater enforcement helps some of the drug users to reduce abuse. A narcotics detective at IU Police Department claimed that some people he had arrested thanked him later. (I wonder if they did so in person or by sending him a “Thank you” note.) Whether this is true or not, the only proponents of the “war” mentioned in either the first or the second article are the law enforcement personnel. Among the opponents, both articles cite Hal Pepinsky, a criminal justice professor at IU. One memorable quote says, “Making a war on people in order to save them doesn’t help.” Indeed, how many of the about 300 people arrested in Bloomington for drug possession in 2003 (about half of them for possession of marijuana) have felt that they had been helped by those arrests?

The final installment of the series talks about some of the costs of the war on drugs and presents the arguments of the local substance abuse treatment centers that the resources in the war on drugs are largely misdirected. It is estimated that keeping the nonviolent drug offenders in the prison system will cost the state of Indiana about $111 million. The amount spent by the state and federal government on the treatment of drug addicts is gong to be less than half of that. The article also mentions favorably the establishment of drug treatment courts that focus on treatment rather than incarceration. Since 1999 when such a court was established in Monroe County, in which Bloomington is located, the two year program for nonviolent, felony drug offenders has diverted 140 people from the system.

In general, the three installments create an impression that the drug war is not going too well (surprise, surprise!). Similarly, a brief editorial in today’s issue of the paper talks about the need for an adjustment of the “drug strategies.” The editorial calls for treating the nonviolent drug offenders “for their health issues” rather than imprisoning them and speaks against the system of mandatory penalties.

Unfortunately, neither the articles nor the editorial ask forcefully whether most of the nonviolent drug users require any attention from the state at all. For example, here is a striking description from one of the “profiles of former drug abusers” that accompany today’s article. He was first arrested for in 1992 after a raid of his home and imprisoned for five years, presumably for possession. As a result, his son “grew up without a father or mother during his teenage years.” In 2003, he was arrested again for felony drug possession. Meanwhile, the offender never had a record of any other crime or violence. And when he was out of prison he always had a job. Why was there any need to put the person in jail or even to force him to be treated for anything? I understand that sometimes ex ante punishments such as for speeding or drunk driving might be justified, but FIVE YEARS in prison just for possession without any other offenses? (Perhaps this is not quite like Bush's preventive war doctrine, but it comes pretty close and it is perpetrated on our own citizens.) Moreover, when drug-related violence is present, isn’t it often due at least in part to the policy of prohibition and not to the drugs themselves? And, of course, it would have been helpful if the article mentioned explicitly that the costs of the war on drugs in Indiana are much, much greater than the $111 million mentioned above. Still, it’s a good sign that our paper has decided at least to raise the issue about whether this war is a good policy. Let’s hope newspapers in other small Midwestern towns and elsewhere follow suit.

Labels: arrests, drugs, Prohibition

 
"Stronger marijuana poses risk for young"
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 12:16 AM

That's the title appearing on Yahoo's homepage right now (12:18 AM, CDT) linking to this Reuters story. The story itself is only slightly less balanced, but it does include some comments from a marijuana legalization advocate towards the end. The worrying news of more kids in treatment for marijuana is not challenged, however: "The number of children and teen-agers in treatment for marijuana dependence and abuse has jumped 142 percent since 1992, the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University reported in April." (Here's one challenge, from the Drug WarRant archives.) But the really bad news is in the second paragraph of the Reuters report:

"Pot is no longer the gentle weed of the 1960s and may pose a greater threat than cocaine or even heroin because so many more people use it. So officials at the National Institutes of Health (news - web sites) and at the White House are hoping to shift some of the focus in research and enforcement from "hard" drugs such as cocaine and heroin to marijuana."

It's about time that we started to think about arresting marijuana users! Oh, wait, we already arrest more than 700,000 such users per year? Never mind.

Labels: arrests, marijuana, teens, treatment

 
A Different Type of Solicitation Arrest
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 1:05 PM

There you are, chatting with a fetching woman in a bar when she suggests that perhaps you might want to buy her a drink. (Both of you are old enough to drink, of course.) She may have just broken the law -- if she gets a share of the profits that the bar derives from the drink purchase. In East L.A., "Four women were arrested for the illegal solicitation of alcohol." (I wonder how this works in strip clubs where everyone understands that the women are employees and that buying them drinks is a way of compensating them?)

Of course, bars can use a related sort of sales gimmick without actually hiring the women: they can subsidize the drink prices and entry fees of women customers, which also will encourage male customers to show up and to buy more drinks. But bars can no longer do so in New Jersey...

Labels: alcohol, arrests, marketing