Springer: Springer Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To Law and Human Behavior

A Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of the Impact of Nebraska's Decriminalization of
Marijuana
Author(s): David L. Suggs
Source: Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 5, No. 1 (1981), pp. 45-71
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1393899
Accessed: 05/10/2010 21:13
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Law and Human Behavior.
http://www.jstor.org
Law and HumanBehavior,Vol. 5, No. 1, 1981
A Qualitative and QuantitativeAnalysis

of the Impact of Nebraska's
Decriminalizationof Marijuana
David L. Suggs*
On January1, 1979Nebraskadecriminalized first-offensepossessionof an ounceor lessof marijuana.This

researchevaluatesthe impact of the new law for the purposesof (a) assessingthe effectivenessof
Nebraska'snew law; (b) clarifyinggeneralissues regardingthe decriminalization of marijuana;and (c)
the legal theoryof decriminalizing
gaininginsightinto the issuessurrounding a broadrangeof victimless
crimes.
In the last ten yearstherehas beena considerableincreasein supportfor the proposi-

tion that some criminaloffenses ought to be decriminalized.The particularcrimes
recommendedfor decriminalizationare predominantlythose involving"victimless"
offenses-e.g., possessionof marijuanaand publicintoxication.It should be noted,
however,that decriminalizationis not the same as legalization.The legalizationof
behaviornow labeledas criminalentails the removalof all penaltiesfor committing
the behaviorwhile decriminalizationrefers to changingthe status of the deviant
behaviorfrom a criminaloffense to a civil infractionand imposinga monetaryfine
ratherthan a jail term.
The basic rationalebehindthis move towarddecriminalizationis the belief that
such a legal approach can still effectively sanction and control the behaviors
designatedas "deviant"with less traumato the individualand less cost to society
(Kurzman& Magell, 1970;Roffman, 1977). This theory containsa numberof im-
plicitassumptionsabouthumanbehaviorwhichapplybothto the offendersof the law
and the actors within the legal system who must deal with the offenders.
*Associate,Donovan,Leisure,Newton & Irvine;New York, N.Y.
45
? 1981PlenumPublishingCorporation
0147-7307/81/0300-0045$03.00/0
46 SUGGS
First of all, the theory assumesthat decriminalizationwill be perceivedas less

traumaticby the individualoffender,and it is difficultto take issuewiththe theoryon
this point. The civil offenderwill usuallynot be arrestedbut insteadwill be issueda
citation,muchlike a trafficticket, orderinghim/her to appearin courton a specified
date. Thus, the offenderof a civil law avoidsthe processof beingtransportedto jail,
photographed,fingerprinted,placedin a cell, and havingto make arrangementsfor
bail, and avoids carryingthe stigma of a criminalrecordthroughoutlife.
The other assumptionsimplicitin the theoryof decriminalizationmay be more
problematical,however.For example,the theoryassumesthat a civil infractionwill
bejust as effectivein curbingthe deviantbehavioras a criminallaw. This assumption
has a numberof subsidiaryones regardinghumanbehavior.First,it assumesthat the
generalpopulationwill perceivethe civil infractionas a sufficientlystrongdeterrentto
foregothe proscribedbehavior.It also containsthe furtherassumptionthat the police
will be as willingto issuecitationswhenthey come upona civil offenderas they would
have been to make an arrestwhenthe behaviorwas criminal.In addition,the theory
assumesthat prosecutorswill be as willingto file chargesagainstcivil offendersas
they would be to file chargesagainstcriminaloffendersandjudges will not become
more lenient in reachingverdictsand assigningpunishments.If the police and the
prosecutorsdo not vigorouslycarryout theirdutiesagainstcivil offenders,the law will
lose its deterrentvalue. It is possible that the police and prosecutorswill perceive
decriminalizationas trivializingthe proscribedbehavior,thus inducingthem to relax
their enforcementefforts.In fact thereis some evidencefromCalifornia'sexperience
with decriminalizationof marijuana(or at least a reductionin the penalty)that the
policedo reducetheirenforcementefforts.In a studypreparedby California'sHealth
and WelfareAgency' it was reportedthat there was a 50%reductionin marijuana
arrestsafter the new law went into effect. Researchneeds to be done to determine
whetherthis effectis the resultof decriminalization per se or whetherit is a functionof
the psychopoliticalclimate in California.
As was notedpreviously,the decriminalizationtheoryassumesthat dealingwith
deviantbehavioron the civil level will be less costly to the administrationof justicein
society. It is obviousthat this assumptionwill hold true in regardto certaintypes of
costs. For example,since the police will not be arrestingoffenders,the cost of police
interventionwill be markedlyreduced.Also, since convictedoffenderswill not be
servingtime in jail or prison, the cost associatedwith correctionalserviceswill be
eliminated.But betweenthe pointsof police interventionandjail, the individualmust
be adjudicatedinnocentor guilty and it is duringthis phaseof the legal processthat
problemsmay arise. It has been assertedthat allegedoffenderscited for civil infrac-
tions will be morelikelyto simplypleadguiltyandpay theirfines,thuseliminatingthe
necessityof costly trials(Roffman, 1977).This assumesa behavioron the partof the
allegedcivil offendersthat may not bejustified.For example,civil defendantsmay be
morelikelyto contestthesecasesfor a numberof reasons.Theymay believethattheir
behavioris not really deviantsince the legislaturedecriminalizedit and may thus be
more willingto fight the legal system. Also, since only a civil infractionis involved,
they may feel more braveaboutcontestingtheircase becausethe maximumpenalties
have been reduced.
'See California Health & Welfare Agency, State Office of Narcotics and Drug Abuse, A FIRSTREPORT
OF
THEIMPACTOF CALIFORNIA'S NEW MARIHUANA LAW(5B95) (Manuscript prepared for the California
Legislature, January 1977).
DECRIMINALIZATION OF MARIJUANA 47
At present,the legal theoryof decriminalizationhas been appliedto only a few

substantiveareas of law and in only a fewjurisdictions.Yet there are sufficientdata
availableon those efforts whichhave been madeto at least beginto studyin an em-
piricalway whetherthe theoryworks.The purposeof the presentresearchwas to do
exactly that. More specifically,it was felt that an examinationof the operationof a
particularscheme of decriminalizationwould yield insightsinto the motivationsof
legislatorsin enactingdecriminalization statutes;wouldhelpthe legalsystemto deter-
minewhetherthe behavioralassumptionsimplicitin decriminalization arevalid(if the
behavioralassumptionsare not foundto be valid, the legal theoryof decriminaliza-
tion, or the particularschemeschosento implementit, may needto be revised);would
serveas a heuristicdevice for evaluatingthe generalprinciplesof decriminalization;
and wouldserveas a modelfor evaluatingdecriminalizationeffortsin othersubstan-
tive areas of the law.
The particularplan of decriminalization chosenfor examinationwas Nebraska's
recentdecriminalizationof marijuana.Case studiesof the decriminalizationof mari-
juana in other states have been performedand are summarizedin a Peat, Marwick,
and Mitchell (1977) reportto the National Governor'sConferenceand in Cuskey,
Berger,and Richardson(1978).Thesepreviousstudieshaveprimarilyrelieduponthe
experienceof Californiaand Oregonand have been chiefly concernedwith whether
the incidence of marijuana use increases and with the economic impact of
decriminalizationuponthe criminaljustice system.The studieshave not examinedin
detail, however, the behavioral and psychological assumptions implicit in the
decriminalization of marijuana.In addition,it needsto be determinedhowthe various
actors involvedin this aspect of the legal process(i.e., marijuanaoffenders,police,
prosecutors,andjudges) perceivedecriminalizationand how their perceptionsaffect
theirbehaviorwith regardto the law. Only whentheseissuesareunderstood-i.e., the
validityof the implicit behavioralassumptionsand the perceptionsof the actors in-
volved with the law-can it be determinednot only whetherchanges occur with
decriminalizationbut also why they occur or do not occur. When it is known
why the changes occurred, we will know what particular aspects of decrim-
inalization caused these changes. The balance of this article will: (1) describe
the legalhistoryof marijuanalegislationin Nebraskaandexaminethe motivationsof
the legislators in enacting the recent decriminalizationstatute; (b) outline the
behavioralassumptionsimplicitin the new legislation,and describethe variablesand
methodsto be usedin testingthoseassumptions;and(c) detailhow the actorsinvolved
in the legal process perceivethe new legislation, and how their perceptionshave
affected their behavior.
THE HISTORYAND LEGISLATIVEINTENTOF MARIJUANA

LEGISLATIONIN NEBRASKA
Nebraska'sfirst attemptto controlthe use of marijuanawas a piece of legisla-
tion2modeledon the federalHarrisonAct of 1914.8This legislationclassifiedmari-
2See NEB. REV. STAT., ?? 28-451 to 28-470 (1943).

"See 38 STAT.785.
48 SUGGS
juana with the opiumderivativesand made the possessionof marijuanaa felony.The

penalty for possessionwas a 2-5-year prison sentenceand a fine of up to $3,000.
Although Nebraska had a law against possessionof marijuanasince the mid-
1940s,abuse of the drug did not becomea problemin the state until the late 1960s.
For example, Galliher, McCartney,and Blum (1974) reportedthat in the State's
capital there was only an average of one case per year of marijuanapossession
between1950and 1967andthat therewas only an averageof 15 cases peryearfor the
entirestate for the years 1960to 1967.In 1968,however,the numberof cases of mari-
juana possessionincreasedsevenfold.4
In 1969, the NebraskaLegislatureunanimouslypassed legislationwhichmade
possessionof one poundor less of marijuanaa misdemeanorpunishableby a fine of
not morethan$500 and/or a termof imprisonmentin the countyjail of not morethan
seven days.6The law also requiredthat everyconvictedoffenderundergocounseling
on drug abuse. Given Nebraska'sconservativepolitical bent and the fact that this
legislationwas enacted duringa time of increaseddrug abuse, a law reducingthe
penaltiesfor possessionwas somewhatsurprising.It was even more surprisingcon-
sideringthe fact that the bill was introducedby one of the State's most conservative
senators, who had earlier introducedan unsuccessfulbill which would have per-
manentlyexpelled(for life) a collegestudentfromany publicor privatecollegeor uni-
versity upon convictionfor possessionof marijuana.6
Why was such apparentlyliberallegislationpassed?Galliheret al. (1974) note a
numberof reasons.First,it was arguedthat the felonypenaltyfor possessionresulted
in ineffectivelaw enforcement."Thepenaltyof a felonywas so great,it was the belief
of the CountyAttorneysthat they wastedtheirtime tryingto enforceit, becausethe
judgeswouldnot applythe felony penalty."7Thus,it was hopedthat a law providing
for more lenient penaltieswould enable increasedlegal interventionand successful
prosecutionof marijuanasmokers.In this way, the individualpunishmentwouldbe
lessened but the overall impact of the legislation would be toward increased
punitiveness.Galliheret al. also notedthat severalmonthspriorto the passageof the
legislation,the sons of a countyattorneyand a universityprofessorhad beencharged
witha felonyfor possessionof marijuana.Thesetwo defendantswererepresentedby a
highlyprominentDemocraticlawyeranda Republicanlawyerwhowas an ex-governor
of the State. The ex-governorwrote a draft of a first-offensepossessionlaw which
categorizedthe offenseas a misdemeanorand sent it to the countyattorneywho was
prosecutingthe two students.Subsequently,the countyattorneysent this draftto the
state legislativedraftinggrouparguingthat the reducedpenaltywouldallow for more
convictions.
There is some evidencewhichindicatesthat the 1969law did achieveits goal of
increasedlaw enforcementbecausein 1970 arrestsinvolvingmarijuanapossession
nearlydoubled.8An alternativeexplanationto this, however,is that the proportionof
4See Nebraska State Patrol, Division of Drug Control, Activity Summary, Drug and Narcotic cases, 3
(1970).
"See ? 28-4, 125 NEB. REV. STAT.(Reissue of 1974).
'See Legislative Bill 8 (1969).
7See Senate Debate on LB 2, March 18, 1969: 744.
SSee n. 4 at 9.
marijuanasmokersapprehendedby law enforcementremainedthe same but that the

numberof marijuanausersdoubled.In termsof the applicationof the 1969law,inter-
views by the author with LancasterCountyjudges revealedthat the seven-dayjail
term was rarely enforcedand that the fine imposedwas, on the average,only $50
ratherthan extendingto the $500 level permittedby the legislation.
Despitethe fact that the 1969misdemeanorlaw clearlyplacedNebraskawithin
the vanguardof states reducingthe penaltiesfor marijuanapossession,in 1978the
Nebraska Legislature enacted legislation which further reduced the possession
penalty.The new law,9whichwent into effect on January1, 1979, providesin part:
(6) Any personknowinglyor intentionallypossessingmarijuanaweighingone ounceor less
shall:
(a) For the first offense,be guiltyof an infraction,receivea citation,be finedone hun-
dreddollars,andbe assignedto attenda [drugeducation]courseas prescribed in sec-
tion 29-433if thejudgedeterminesthat attendingsuchcourseis in the bestinterests
of the individualdefendant:
(b) For secondoffense,be guiltyof a Class IV misdemeanor,receivea citation,and be
finedtwo hundreddollarsand may be imprisonednot to exceed five days;and
(c) For the third,and all subsequentoffenses,be guilty of a Class IIIA misdemeanor,
receivea citation,be finedthreehundreddollars,andbe imprisonednot to exceed
sevendays.
For possession of from one ounce to one pound of marijuana,the punishmentis

identicalto the 1969 misdemeanorlaw-i.e., such possessionis a Class IIIA mis-
demeanorpunishableby a $0-500 fine and/or sevendays in jail. Possessionof more
than one pound remainsa felony.
The significantchangesbroughtabout by the new law are fivefold. First, and
probablymost importantly,first-offensepossessionis a civil infractionratherthan a
criminalmisdemeanor.Thus, those cited and convictedonly once will not have a
criminalrecordto labor underfor the rest of theirlives. Second,whereasthe old law
allowedfor judicialdiscretionin fining(i.e., $0-500), the new law providesfor man-
datoryfines. Third,thejail termshavebeenmodified.For a firstoffense,no jail term
is allowed,whereasfor the secondoffense,jail is discretionarybutthe maximumterm
has beenreducedfrom sevendays in jail to five. For the thirdoffense,thereis a man-
datoryjail sentence,butit is not to exceedsevendays. Fourth,drugeducationis men-
tionedonly withregardto firstoffenders,andit is merelywithinthejudge'sdiscretion
to directthe offenderto attend.The old law requiredall personsconvictedof posses-
sion to attenda drugeducationcourse.And finally,the legislaturehas directedthat
offendersbe issued a citationratherthan being arrested.Lincolnand Omahavolun-
tarilyimplementeda citationsystemseveralyearsago for civil infractionsandcertain
misdemeanorswhichincludedthe possessionof marijuana.The new law now makes
citation for possessionmandatoryon a state-widebasis.
The new law is a synthesisof both conservativeand liberalforces. The conser-
vativesbelievedthat the use of marijuana,especiallyby adolescents,is a menaceof
dangerousproportionand consequence.Theirphilosophyfor correctingthe problem
was to establishstrict laws for possessionand to vigorouslyenforcethem.
On the other side of the politicalspectrumregardingmarijuanapossessionwere
'See ? 24-416,NEB.REV.STAT.(Cum. Supp. 1974).

50 SUGGS
those who wishedto (a) eliminatethe problemof young peoplehavinga permanent

criminalrecordafter a convictionfor marijuanapossession;and (b) to facilitatethe
administrationof the law againstmarijuanapossession.At the JudiciaryCommittee
Hearingon the forerunnerof the final bill, LB 187, on February22, 1977, these in-
dividualsarguedthat a numberof surveyshad shownthat the averagecost of arrest-
ing and processinga marijuanaoffenderwas approximately$1,500, yet the average
fine assessedby LancasterCountyjudgeswas only $50. Thus,they believedthattreat-
ing marijuanaas a criminaloffensenecessitatingarrestsimplydid not makeeconomic
sense whenthe actualpenaltyassignedwas so low. Also testifyingin favorof the bill
becauseof the economicsavingsit wouldentail was the then LincolnPolice Chief.A
LancasterCounty judge also testified that marijuanausers do not fit the typical
criminalmold and that high penaltieslead to more legal contests thus cloggingthe
courts. He stated that over half the time spent on misdemeanortrials was spent on
marijuanapossessionalthoughthosecases makeup only 10%to 12%of the total mis-
demeanortrials. Finally,a notedexperton drugabuse,Dr. Joel Fort,testifiedthat the
law oughtto directits focus to drugdistributorsand that horrorstoriesregardingthe
effects of marijuanaon the user were simply incorrect.He testifiedthat the threat
posedto the drugusersby the drugitself is innocuouswhereasthe punishmentmeted
out to them upon convictionis destructive.
In a series of negotiations,a compromiseof sorts was arrivedat and the final
formof that compromiseis reflectedin ? 28-416.The liberalforcesachievedtheirpur-
poses of decriminalizingpossessionfor a first offense and were able to institutea
system of citationratherthan arrest.The conservativeswerenot able to increasethe
term of imprisonmentfor the thirdoffense but did succeedin makingsome term of
imprisonmentmandatory.Theywerealso successfulin effectivelyincreasingthe fines
associatedwith possessionbecausethe new law specifiesmandatoryfines. Underthe
old law, the amountof the fineswasleft to the discretionof thejudgeandin Lancaster
County these averagedonly $50.
THE BEHAVIORALASSUMPTIONSIMPLICITIN THE NEW

LEGISLATION
From the interviewswhich were conductedwith the state senatorsprincipally
involved in the new legislation and from an examination of official legislative
transcripts,it is clear that the Legislaturedid not feel that it was backing away
from an oppositionto the use and abuse of marijuana.It still very much feels that
marijuanais a social problemworthyof a legal sanctionagainstits use. The problem
as they saw it was to come up with a legal scheme which maintainsan effective
deterrentforce while facilitatingthe judicialadministrationof society'ssanctionand
protectingyoung offendersfrom the permanentharmof a criminalrecord.Thus,the
major behavioralassumptionsimplicitin the new law are that decriminalizationof
marijuanapossessionwill not (a) be perceivedas moretraumaticthanthe old law;(b)
lead to an increaseduse of marijuana;(c) causelaw enforcementofficials(i.e., police,
prosecutorsand judges) to reducetheir enforcementefforts;and (d) will not create
new problemsin the apprehensionandadjudicationof marijuanausers.Eachof these
major assumptionsmay be evaluatedby examininga numberof variables.
METHOD
As often happens in field researchwhere controls and manipulationsare not

feasible,it is difficultor impossibleto adequatelyevaluatethe validityof any of the
above-mentionedbehavioralassumptionsby meansof a singlemeasure.Thuseach of
the assumptionswill be examinedfroma numberof perspectives-suchas interviews,
surveys,and statisticalanalysesof policeandcourtrecords.Thesedifferentsourcesof
data will then be "triangulated,"in an attemptto ultimatelydeterminethe validityof
the behavioralassumptions.
Court Records
Since possessionof marijuanawas a misdemeanorunderthe old law and a civil
infractionunderthe newlaw, possessioncasescome underthejurisdictionof the coun-
ty courtsof Nebraska.The LancasterCountyCourtCriminalDocket was examined
and the informationwas recordedpertainingto everymarijuanacase in the last two
monthsof 1977, 1978(the 1977and 1978data representpredecriminalization cases),
and the first 8 months of 1979 (postdecriminalization data availableat the time of
writing).LancasterCounty, the second largest county in Nebraska,consists of ap-
proximately185,000people.Most of this populationresidesin the city of Lincoln,the
state capital, whichhas approximately165,000residents.The docket book listed for
each case: the defendant'sname,date of birth,prosecutingattorney,defenseattorney
(if any), type of charge,date of filingof the charge,date of the court'sruling,whether
a trial was held, and the natureof the disposition(i.e., the amountof the fine and/or
jail term). There were a total of 719 cases recordedwith 393 occurringpriorto the
change in the law and 336 occurringafter the change.
From these recordsthe followingvariableswere able to be directlyexamined:
1. the frequenciesof minorschargedwith possession(brokendown by felony,
misdemeanorand civil infractioncharges);
2. the frequenciesof adults charged with possession(also broken down by
felony, misdemeanor,and civil infractioncharges);
3. the frequenciesof defendantsshuntedout of the criminaljustice systemby
means of a pretrialdiversionprogram;
4. the frequenciesof defendantswhose cases were dismissedby the countyat-
torney after chargeshad been filed;
5. the frequenciesof casesdismissedby the courtaftertrial(i.e., contestedcases
where the defendantwas found innocent);
6. the frequenciesof defendantsfound guilty (broken down by those who
pleadedtheir cases and those who contestedtheir cases);
7. the frequenciesof defendantsappearingwith and withoutattorneys;and
8. the frequenciesof variousdispositions(i.e., < $50 fine, $100 fine, $300 fine,
$500 fine, jail term, jail term plus fine, and the frequenciesof defendants
placed on probation).
In addition,a numberof the variableslisted abovewerecombinedto createnew
variables.Indicesof the exerciseof prosecutorialdiscretionwerecreatedfor the two
pointsin the processwheresuchdiscretionis possible.The prosecutormay firstelect
52 SUGGS
to exercise discretion when she/he receives a report from the police that a person has
been cited or arrested. At the time of reviewing that report she/he may decide not to
prosecute for a variety of reasons. The index of the prosecutor's discretion at this
point in the process was created by designating a new variable (PDI) = number of
charges filed/number of police arrests and/or citations (the police records will be
described in a succeeding section). The prosecutor may also elect to exercise her/his
discretion by electing to drop a charge after it has been filed. The index for this type of
discretion was created by designating a new variable (PD2) = number of charges dis-
missed by the county attorney/number of charges originally filed. The final variable
created (CC1) was an index of the proportion of contested cases = number of con-
tested cases (both guilty and innocent)/number of contested and pleaded cases.
Since the data from the docket book on each marijuana case included the date on
which the charge was filed, it was possible to aggregate the data on all the variables by
month. Thus there were a total of 14 monthly data points prior to the intervention of
the new law and 8 monthly data points postintervention.
The data were first analyzed by grouping them into pre- and postintervention
groups and performing t tests on all of the above-mentioned variables. McCain and
McCleary (1979), however, have noted that significance tests of time-series data based
on the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression may be inappropriate. This is because
the OLS regression relies on the assumption that the error terms of each observation
are independent. They further point out that with naturally occurring events observa-
tions close to each other within the time series may be correlated. When error terms
are serially correlated the estimate of the standard deviation is usually biased
downwards, resulting in an inflated t statistic. Thus if a t statistic is used to evaluate a
"treatment" (or legal intervention) in which the observations are autocorrelated, the
"treatment" may seem to have more of an impact than it really has.
Since autocorrelations in social science data may bias t values, whenever a
variable from the court records was tested by the t statistic and found to be significant
it was further analyzed in the following way. The computer program CORREL
developed by Bower, Padia, and Glass (1974) was used to determine whether there
was any autocorrelation within the data. As it turned out, however, the data in the
variables from the court records were not autocorrelated and thus were able to be
analyzed directly from the original t tests.
Police Records
The police in every jurisdiction of Nebraska send monthly arrest and citation
records to the Nebraska Commission on Crime. The monthly reports of arrests from
Omaha and the monthly arrest and citation reports from Lincoln were obtained from
the Commission. The reason for the difference in the nature of the data between Lin-
coln and Omaha stems from the fact that Omaha does not differentiate between
arrests and citations in its reports to the Commission.
The reasoning behind obtaining these data only from Lincoln and Omaha rather
than from the entire state is twofold. First, Lincoln and Omaha are the two primary
urban areas in the state and the statistician at the Commission reported that by far the
vast majority of marijuana cases come from these two jurisdictions. Second, and more
important, is the fact that while the new statute mandates that citations now be issued
for possessionof marijuanawheneverpossible,Lincolnand Omahahad voluntarily

implementeda citation system which includedmarijuanaas a citable offense three
years ago. Thus, in jurisdictionsotherthan Omahaand Lincolnthe new law changed
not only the labelwhichis attachedto possession(i.e., civilinfractionratherthanmis-
demeanor)but also the methodby whichthe police are to intervenewith violatorsof
the law. By virtue of this fact, a change in the frequenciesof police interventionin
otherjurisdictionscouldbe a functionof the changein the law regardingthe issuance
of citations ratherthan being a functionof decriminalization per se.
From these police recordsten variableswere availablefor examination:
1. the frequenciesof Lincolnadult arrestsand citations;
2. the frequenciesof Lincolnadult citations;
3. the proportionof Lincolnadultcitations= numberof adultcitations/number
of adult arrestsand citations;
4. the frequenciesof Lincolnminor arrestsand citations;
5. the frequenciesof Lincolnminor citations;
6. the proportion of Lincoln minor citations = number of minor cita-
tions/numberof minor arrest and citations;
7. the proportionof Lincoln minor and adult citations = number of total
citations/numberof total arrestsand citations;
8. the frequenciesof Lincolnand Omaha adult arrestsand citations;
9. the frequenciesof Lincolnand Omaha minor arrestsand citations;and
10. the frequenciesof LincolnandOmahaadultand minorarrestsand citations.
Twenty-fourpreinterventionmonthlydata points were availableon all of the
above-mentionedvariables.In regardto the postinterventionperiod,however,only 8
data points were availablefor the first seven variablesand only 6 data points were
availablefor variables8-10. This discrepancyis becauseOmaha is severalmonths
behindin reportingits data to the NebraskaCrimeCommission.The meansof the
pre- and postinterventiondata on the above-mentionedvariableswere tested for
significantchangesby the t statistic.As will be reportedin detail later, whentested,
none of these variablesshowedchangesas a functionof new law. Thus,the data were
not subjectedto the time seriesanalysisfor the same reasonsas discussedin the im-
mediatelyprecedingdiscussionof the court records.
Surveys
Two surveyswere conductedin connectionwith this researchproject.The first
surveywas administeredby a police officer to 108 fellow police officersin Lincoln,
Nebraska. The survey was conductedduring successivewatch calls at the police
departmenton a day in whichno policeofficershadthe day off. Thus,everypoliceof-
ficerengagedin field workwho was not sick or on vacationansweredthe survey;this
resultedin virtuallythe entirepolice force of Lincolnresponding.Duringthe watch
calls the watchcommander(shiftsupervisor)conductsa meetingin whichassignments
are made, bulletinsare announced,and other administrativemattersare attendedto
whileall of the officerson the shift are seatedin the sameroom.At thesemeetingsthe
officers were informedthat the purposeof the surveywas to assess their attitudes
towardpossessionof marijuanaand to determinehow their attitudesand behaviors
54 SUGGS
with respect to the offense have changed (if at all) as a result of the decriminalization
law.
The survey first began by eliciting from the officers demographic information
such as their age, length of service as a police officer, rank, military experience, sex,
and education level. The survey then asked a series of questions as to the officers'
degree of experience with marijuana offenders, how serious they felt the offense to be,
how often they use discretion in deciding not to arrest or cite someone for possession,
what type of situation most often brings about marijuana arrests or citations, and
their reactions to the provisions of the new law. For most of the questions the officers
were asked to respond on a five-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly
agree. On the remaining questions the officers were asked to pick the most ap-
propriate answer supplied for the question asked.
The data were first analyzed by simply doing a frequency count for the responses
and establishing proportions for the frequencies. Because there was considerable
variability in the answers given, the data were further analyzed to determine whether
the variability in the responses to the attitudinal questions were related to differences
in the demographics of the police officers. For questions in which the response was
made on a five-point scale, the significance of differences in the means of the
responses by each demographic grouping was tested by a one-way ANOVA. As an ex-
ample, the responses to the question dealing with the officers' attitudes about the
seriousness of the offense of possession were tested to determine whether the attitudes
varied significantly as a function of the educational level of the officers. For questions
in which the responses were not made on the basis of a five-point scale, the
demographic categories and the responses to the attitudinal questions were cross-
tabulated, and the significance of the cell frequencies tested by the chi-square statistic.
As it turned out, there were few differences in the responses to questions specifically
concerned with marijuana possession which were a function of demographic
differences. That is, demographics did make a difference in regard to police attitudes
about general areas of police work but not in regard to attitudes about marijuana.
Thus, the results of this more specific analysis will not be further discussed in this
paper.
The second survey was administered to 135 students enrolled in an under-
graduate social psychology class at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. At the begin-
ning of the class session the students were merely informed that the survey was seeking
to determine their attitudes about the laws regarding possession of marijuana. On the
first page of the survey the students were asked whether they were aware of the change
in the law regarding possession and were tested as to their knowledge of the provisions
of the law against possession. The students were then informed of the exact provisions
of the new law. After being so informed, they were asked
1. in what ways they thought the new law would have an effect on the smoking
of marijuana;
2. their reaction to the various provisions of the new law;
3. how they would be likely to react to being caught in possession in light of the
provisions of the new law;
4. their attitudes towards the decriminalization and/or legalization of mari-
juana; and
DECRIMINALIZATIONOF MARIJUANA 55
5. a numberof demographicquestions(i.e., age, religion,politicalaffiliation,

and sex)
This surveywas analyzedby breakingdownthe responsesto the questionsby frequen-
cies and proportions.
Interviews.
Interviewswere conductedwith convictedmarijuanaoffenders,the police, the
county attorneychiefly responsiblefor prosecutingdrugcases in LancasterCounty,
and the LancasterCountyjudges who adjudicatepossessioncases. Only 15 adult
offendersof the new marijuanalaw were interviewedout of a possible286. This low
responserate was attributableto the fact that manyof the offenderslistedin the Lan-
casterCountyCriminalDocketdid not havetelephoneslistedin the Lincolntelephone
directoryand simply could not be contacted.And of those offenderswho could be
contactedby telephone,many did not want to be interviewedabouttheirpast illegal
behavioreven though they were assured about the anonymityof their responses.
Thoseoffenderswhodid consentto be interviewedwereaskedabout:the factualsitua-
tion surroundingtheir apprehensionby the police (e.g., whetherthey were cited or
arrested,where they were when cited or arrested,and the natureof the interaction
betweenthemselvesandthe policeofficer);whetherthey wereawareof the newlaw at
the time of arrest,and if not, whenwerethey madeawareof its provisions;theirreac-
tions to the new law's provisions;whetherthey contestedtheircase or pleadedguilty
and the reasonsfor theirchoicein this decision;theirattitudestowarddecriminaliza-
tion and legalizationof marijuanain general;the impactof theirconvictionin regard
to family,friends,job, and schoolrelationships,andwhethertheirexperiencewiththe
law has caused them to modify their behaviorwith respectto marijuana.Giventhe
low response rate among the actual marijuanaoffenders,it is possible that this
relativelysmall samplemay be verybiased.Despitethis problemit was decidedto in-
clude this sourceof data becauseit does contributeto the understandingof the issues
and becausethe findingsof these interviews(as will be reportedlater)dovetailrather
closely with other sources of data.
Extensivein-depthinterviewswereconductedwith severalexperiencedpolice of-
ficers.Theseinterviewsfocusedon (a) the meansby whichthey detectandapprehend
marijuanaoffenders;(b) their perceptionsof marijuanaoffendersand the offense
itself;(c) theiruse of discretionin decidingto interveneandthe waysin whichtheyuse
this offenseas a tool for obtaininginformationrelatingto othermoreseriousoffenses;
and (d) theirperceptionsconcerningproblemsin the operationof the old andthe new
law regardingpossession. The informationobtained in these interviewswas very
revealing in its own right and was invaluablein guiding the formulationof the
questionsin the police surveydiscussedearlier.
Several extensive interviewswere conductedwith the county attorneychiefly
responsiblefor prosecutingmarijuanacases in LancasterCounty(the countywhich
includesthe City of Lincoln).These interviewsfocusedon the attorney'sperceptions
of the operationof the newlaw-i.e., his perceptionsof: the frequenciesof cases com-
ing beforehim;the frequenciesof contestedand pleadedcases;the offendersandtheir
56 SUGGS
attitudestowardthe process;the ways in whichdefenseattorneyshave respondedto

the new law;the provisionsof the new law;and the ways in whichthe law oughtto be
modified.In addition,afterthe empiricaldatawereanalyzed,the countyattorneywas
reinterviewedand the findings were discussed with him. This discussion was in-
valuablein interpretingthe resultsof the variousempiricaltests performed.
The LancasterCountyjudges with experiencein adjudicatingmarijuanacases
were also interviewed.Interviewswereconductedat threeand eight monthsafterthe
new law had been in force. These interviewswere for the purposeof determiningthe
judges'attitudestoward:the marijuanaoffenders,the offenseof marijuanapossession
in general;and the provisionsof the new law. Thejudgeswerealso questionedas to
whetherthey perceivedproblemsin the operationof the new law andhow they would
recommendthat those problemsbe alleviated.
RESULTS
In this sectionthe behavioralassumptionsimplicitin Nebraska'sdecriminaliza-
tion legislationwill be restatedand data from a numberof sourcespertainingto the
validityof the assumptionswill be presented.Thesevarioussourcesof data will then
be combinedto reach an overall conclusionas to the validity of each assumption.
Assumption 1: The law decriminalizingpossession will be perceived as less
traumaticthanthe old law by marijuanaoffenders.As was notedin an earliersection,
one of the prime motivations of the legislators in enacting the new law was to
eliminatethe problemof youthfulmarijuanaoffendersbeingburdenedwitha criminal
recordfor the rest of theirlives. This problemwasresolvedby legislativefiat whenthe
legislatorschangedthe legal label of possessionfroma misdemeanorto a civil infrac-
tion. The implicit assumptioninvolvedhere is that marijuanaoffenderswill indeed
perceivethe new law as a benefitto them.At firstblushit wouldseemthat the testing
of this hypothesisis superfluoussinceit is intuitivelyobviousthat anyonewouldrather
be chargedwitha civil infractionratherthana criminalmisdemeanor.But,in addition
to makingpossessiona civil offense,the new law also providesfor a mandatory$100
fine. Since the averagefine underthe old law was only $50, it is possiblethat mari-
juana offendersmightperceivethe newlaw as beingstricterthanthe old. If this latter
perceptionwereto be trueit wouldhaveimplicationsregardingthe deterrenteffectof
the law and perhapsincreasethe hostilitybetweenthe police officerand offenderat
the time of police intervention.
Data from the interviewsof marijuanaoffendersandfromthe studentandpolice
surveysindicatethat the new law is perceivedas less traumaticthanthe old despitethe
present$100 mandatoryfine.Thesedata are presentedin Table 1. As illustratedthere,
the vast majorityof the marijuanaoffenderssaid that they wereprimarilyglad when
they foundout aboutthe provisionsof the newlaw becausepossessionof marijuanais
now only a civil offense;less than one-tenthof those surveyedwere more disturbed
about the mandatory $100 fine. The college students surveyedwere also over-
whelminglyin supportof the changein categorizingpossessionas a civilinfraction.In
addition,on otherquestions,three-fourthsof the studentsrespondedthat the newlaw
Table 1. Questions and Responses Relating to the Issue of Whether the New Law is Perceived
as Less Traumatic than the Old
Marijuana offenders (N = 15):

What was your initial reaction when you found out about the new law?
a. Primarily glad because possession is now only a civil offense-90.9%
b. Primarily angry because of the mandatory fine-9. I%
College students (N = 135):

1. Under the old law possession was punishable as a misdemeanor but the average fine in Lancaster
County was only $50. Under the new law possession is only a civil infraction but it has a mandatory fine
of $100. Put yourself in the shoes of someone caught for possession under the new law. Would you
a. be less upset about it because it is only a civil infraction and thus it will not give you a criminal
record-84.2%
b. be more upset about it because it involves a mandatory $100 fine (instead of the old $50 fine)-
14.4%
(1.4% did not respond)
2. Do you think the new law is
a. an improvement because possession is now only a civil infraction-76.3%
b. worse than the old law because the average fine under the old law was only $50-46.8%
Police officers (N = 108):

Which of the following statements is more accurate?
a. Violators don't seem to care as much about being arrested now that the change has occurred be-
cause it is only a civil infraction-72.2%
b. Violators are now more concerned about being arrested because of the mandatory $100 fine-
25.9%
was an improvementbecause of the civil infractionprovision,and less than half

respondedthat the newlaw is worsethanthe old becauseof the mandatoryfine. In the
police surveythree-fourthsof the officers respondedthat "Violatorsdon't seem to
careas muchaboutbeingarrestednowthatthe changehas occurred,becauseit is only
a civil infraction."However,one-fourthfelt that violatorsare now more concerned
about being arrestedbecauseof the mandatory$100 fine. The implicationsof this
latter result will be discussedlater in conjunctionwith other data.
Althoughdifferingsomewhatin degree,all the sourcesof data point to the con-
clusionthat the new law is perceivedas beingless traumaticto offendersthanthe old
law. Thus,it wouldseem that the legislativepurposeof softeningthe impactof mari-
juana possessionon offendershas been correctlyperceivedand appreciatedby the
public.
It is possible,however,that this perceptionof increasedleniencyin the law will
reduceits deterrentvalue, thus encouragingmore people to smoke marijuanaor to
smoke it more openly. The followingsection will specificallyaddressthis issue.
Assumption2: Decriminalizationwill not lead to an increaseduse of marijuana.
It was obviousfrom the legislativehistorybehindthe new law that the state senators
did not wish to see an increasein the use of marijuana;and given this, it is apparent
that they implicitlyassumedthatdecriminalization of marijuanapossessionwouldnot
lead to suchan increase.This assumptionis probablythe mostdifficultone to test em-
pirically,but the data indicatethat decriminalizationhas not led to a significantin-
crease in marijuanause.
58 SUGGS
In order for decriminalization per se to have an effect on the use of marijuana the
public would first have to be aware of the provisions of the new law and then decide
that the penalties are such that they would feel safer about using the drug. However,
the results of the interviews with marijuana offenders and the police and student sur-
veys which are presented in Table 2 indicate that most people are simply not aware of
the new law. As can be seen in the table, slightly less than half of the marijuana
offenders were aware of the new law prior to being arrested or cited by the police. An
almost identical level of general awareness was found among the college students sur-
veyed-only 42% knew that a new law regarding possession had been enacted. As to
awareness of the specific provisions of the new law, only one-fourth of the college
students could correctly identify the penalties for possession when they were presented
to them in a four-alternative, multiple-choice question. This finding of a very low
public awareness of the new law is substantiated by an item in the police survey where
approximately two-thirds of the officers estimated that at best only 40% of the
violators they arrested or cited were aware of or understood the change in the law at
the time of initial contact. Since the public awareness of the law is so low, it seems
reasonable to expect that the change in the law per se will not have much of an impact
on the use of marijuana.
After being tested as to their knowledge of the new law, the college students were
informed of its provisions and asked what impact they felt it would have on smoking
behavior. These data are presented in Table 3. This table shows that only a little more
than 10% of the students surveyed felt that more people would now be willing to
Table 2. Data Relating to Public Awareness of the Decriminalization Law
Marijuana offenders (N = 15):

Were you aware of the new law prior to your arrest/citation?
a. yes-41.7%
b. no-58.3%
College students (N = 135):

1. Were you aware that there was a change in the law regarding possession of marijuana that went into
effect on January 1, 1979?
a. yes-42.4%
b. no-56.8%
2.a Is first-time possession of 1 ounce or less of marijuana now punishable as
a. a misdemeanor with a fine of $0-500 and/or 7 days in jail (old law)-28.1%
b. a misdemeanor with a fine of $50-15.1%
c. a civil infraction with a mandatory $100 fine (new law)-26.6%
d. a civil infraction with a $0-100 fine-28.7%
Police officers (N = 108):

Of the violators you have arrested/cited since the change in the marijuana law, what percentage do you
think were aware of or understood the change in the law at the time of initial contact?
a. less than 10%-25.9% of officers responding
b. 10%to 20%-19.4% of officers responding
c. 20% to 40%-20.4% of officers responding
d. 40% to 80%-22.2% of officers responding
e. over 80%- 11.1% of officers responding
,The correct answer was c.
Table 3. College Students' Perceptions of the New Law
Question: As a matter of fact, the legislature enacted a law which provides that possession is now a civil
infraction punishable by a mandatory $100 fine. Given this fact do you think
a. more people will now be willing to smoke marijuana-12.9% of the students responding
b. since a mandatory $100 fine is involved less people will be willing to smoke marijuana-1.4% of
the students responding
c. there will not be an increase in the number of people smoking but they will be less cautious
about getting caught-23.0%
d. there will not be an increase in the number of people smoking but they will be more cautious
about getting caught-10.1%
e. the new law will not have a significant impact either on the number of people who smoke or on
whether they are more or less cautious about getting caught-52.6%
smoke marijuana, while over 85% felt that there would not be an increase in the
number of people willing to smoke.
In another attempt to determine whether the law has in fact led to increased or
more open use of marijuana, the frequency of arrests and citations which had been
gathered from the police records was analyzed. The rationale behind this approach is
that if more people are smoking or smoking more openly under thvenew law, then
there should be an increase in the monthly average of arrests and citations (assuming,
of course, that police enforcement behavior does not change, and this will be discussed
under Assumption 3). The data for these comparisons are presented in Table 4, and
they show a small but insignificant increase in the number of adults arrested each
month and a small but insignificant decrease in the number of minors arrested each
month. Separate analyses were done of Lincoln and Omaha data, and these analyses
showed the same pattern of results, indicating that the findings were not coming
predominantly from one of those locations.
All of the sources of data point to the conclusion that the decriminalization of
marijuana has not led to an increase in use of the drug. It is suspected that this is
because the decision to use the drug or not is a function of social and psychological
factors other than the state of the law. The dramatic increase in the use of marijuana
began in the late 1960s when many states classified possession as a felony, and it was
only after the increase in use that the law began to liberalize its approach to posses-
sion. Thus, it seems more logical to conclude that lessened penalties for possession are
a response to increased use rather than a cause of the increase. Yet, it is possible that
decriminalization will contribute to a further increase in the use of marijuana once the
provisions of the law are fully understood by the public. Since the data reveal that
Table 4. Differences in Arrest and Citation Frequencies for Marijuana Possession

Monthly mean Monthly mean
under old law under new law df t value P
Lincoln and Omaha
adults 50.29 61.50 30 -1.07 N.S.
Lincoln and Omaha
minors 20.45 19.50 30 0.15 N.S.
Lincoln and Omaha
all ages 74.66 81.00 30 -0.48 N.S.
60 SUGGS
most peoplein Nebraskaare not yet fully awareof the state of the law, it is possible
that futureresearchwill show an increasein the use of marijuana.
Assumption3: Thedecriminalization of marijuanawillnot influencelaw enforce-
ment officialsto reducetheirenforcementefforts.In orderto understandthe nuances
of this assumption,it will be worthwhileat this time to brieflydescribethe enforce-
ment processfrom policeinterventionto judicialverdict,so that the readerwill know
the variouspoints withinthe processwhereenforcementeffortscouldbe reduced.The
first step in the process,of course,lies in police intervention.Duringthe in-depthin-
terviewswith police officers, it was revealedthat the police have not been actively
searchingout marijuanaoffenderssinceapproximately1974.The authorwas told that
priorto that time police officersgainedprestigeby apprehending possessorsof mari-
juana but that starting in about 1974 there was a shift in attitudetowardthe offense
suchthat it was no longerseen as a "bust"worthyof particularmerit.Thisshiftin at-
titudewas apparentlynot the resultof a changein officialpolicy,however.As a result
of the changein attitude,police interventionwith marijuanaoffendersis usuallyonly
a chance encounter.
The survey of police officers revealedthat 49%of the officers felt that traffic
stops yieldthe most arrests/citationsfor possession(see Table5). Whatoccursin this
situationis that the officerwill discovermarijuanain a car or on the driverafterstop-
ping the driverfor speeding,erraticdriving,or a missingtail light,etc. Whenmaking
a stop like this the officerhasthe rightto seize anymarijuanain plainviewandhasthe
rightto "patdown"a personto ensurethat he is not carryinga weapon.The situation
designated as the second most frequent source of arrests/citations was the
"shakedown"(19.4%).The officerswho wereinterviewedsaid that "shakedowns"are
situationswherean officerwill stop a personon the streetsimplybecausehe is out late
at night,becausehe is in an unusualplace(e.g., an alley), or becausehe looks like he
mightbe part of the "criminalelement."Whenaskedwhetherthe policeusuallyhave
a legal justificationto "shakedown"someone, the officers admittedthat probable
cause is typically very tenuous or nonexistent.The officers reportedthat "shake-
downs"are a problemfor thembecause,on the one hand,theyperceiveinformalpres-
sure from the police departmentto turn in a certain numberof shakedownseach
Table 5. Police Officers' Responses to Survey Questions Relating to Enforcement Practices

(N = 108)
1. What type of situation most often brings about marijuana,arrests?
a. traffic stops-49% of officers responding
b. concerts-8.3% of officers responding
c. informants-7.4% of officers responding
d. shakedowns-19.4% of officers responding
e. calls for service-15.7% of officers responding
2. How do you feel about this statement? People who are in violation of the law should always be arrested
and discretion or special circumstances should not play a big part in an officer's decision to arrest.
a. strongly disagree-29.6% of officers responding
b. disagree-24. 1% of officers responding
c. neutral-37% of officers responding
d. agree-7.4% of officers responding
e. strongly agree-1.9% of officers responding
month and, on the other hand, if there is a subsequentjudicialdeterminationthat a

stop was madewithoutprobablecause,they will be subjectto reprimand.The officers
also reportedthat the informalpressurefrom the police departmenthas decreased
somewhatin the light of recentjudicialrulingsprohibitingthis type of activity.Calls
for service werejudged to be the most frequentsource of arrests/citationsby only
15.7%of the officers;and informantsand rock concertswerejudged to be the most
frequentsources by 7.4%and 8.3%,respectively.
Assumingthat an officerdoes happento come across a personin possessionof
marijuana,it does not follow that the police officerwill alwaysarrestor cite the per-
son. In the policesurveythe officerswerepresentedwitha questionas to whetherthey
believedthey should not use discretionin decidingto arrest someone. The officers
werethen askedto respondon a five-pointscale rangingfromstronglydisagree(1) to
stronglyagree(5), and 90.7%respondedby answeringwith a 3 or less (See Table 5).
Thus,the vast majorityof officersfeel that theyhavethe rightto exercisediscretionin
decidingto arrestor not, even whenit is clearthat an individualhas violatedthe law.
It is possible that underthe new law decriminalizationmay have influencedthe of-
ficers to use this discretionmore liberallywith marijuanaoffendersand, thereby,to
relax the enforcementagainst possession.
If the officerdoes arrestor cite someonefor possessionof marijuana,the case is
then turnedover to the countyattorney.If decriminalizationsomehowinfluencesthe
countyattorneyto reducehis enforcementefforts,thereare two placesin the process
wherethis wouldbe revealed.The prosecutormightreducehis enforcementeffortsby
simply filing less chargesagainst offendersafter their cases are submittedto him by
the police, or he might decideto go aheadand initiallyfile as manychargesas under
the old law, hopingthat most of themwill decideto pleadguilty.The prosecutorcould
then decide to dismiss more of the contestedcases prior to trial.
Thejudgesalso havea role in the enforcementprocesssincethey makethe deter-
minationof guilt or innocence.If decriminalizationcausesthem to reducetheir en-
forcementefforts,then it wouldbe expectedthat morepeoplewill bejudgedinnocent
underthe new law than was the case underthe old law.
In summary,if decriminalizationleadsto a reductionin law enforcementefforts,
there are a numberof places in the legal processwherethis might occur.The police
may reducethe numberof arrests/citationsof offenders;the prosecutormay decideto
file charges against fewer apprehendedoffendersor to subsequentlydismiss more
cases priorto trial;and the judge may decideto find more peopleinnocentunderthe
new law.
In regardto policebehaviorthe resultsofferedin the previoussectionwhichcon-
cludedthat there was an insignificantincreasein the numberof police interventions
(See Table4) can also be used hereto arguethat decriminalizationdoes not lead to a
reductionin the law enforcementeffortsof the police. Interestinglyenough,however,
while the arrestrecordsin Table 4 show a slight, althoughinsignificant,increasein
police intervention,the policesurveydata presentedin Table6 lead one to suspectthat
the police have reducedtheir enforcementefforts. While most officers reportedno
change in their attitudesor arrestingbehavior,a substantialminorityreportedthat
they had changedtheirattitudestowardthe offenseanddecreasedslightlythe number
of arrestsmade, and a smallerminorityreportedthat they had greatlydecreasedthe
numberof arrestsmade. And on the questionwhichsoughtto elicit the reasonsfor
62 SUGGS
Table 6. Police Officers' Estimates of Their Attitude Change Toward Marijuana, Their Change
of Arresting Behavior, and Their Attributions of the Reasons for Such Changes (N = 108)
1. Have your attitudes about possession of small amounts of marijuana changed so that there has been a
change in the number of these type arrests that you have made within the last year?
a. Yes, I have decreased greatly the number of these type of arrests-8.3% agreement
b. Yes, I have decreased slightly the number of these type of arrests-20.4% agreement
c. There has been no change-67.6% agreement
d. Yes, I have increased slightly the number of these type arrest-2.8% agreement
e. Yes, I have increased greatly the number of these type arrests-0.9% agreement
2. If there has been a change in your attitudes and behaviors regarding enforcement of marijuana laws,
why have they changed?
a. I have been influenced by official department policy regarding this type of offense-16.4%
b. I have been influenced by unofficial department policy regarding this type of offense-15.18%
c. I have been influenced by public opinion regarding this type of offense-26.5%
d. I have been influenced by judicial decisions in this area-12.6%
e. I have been influenced by peer pressure towards a change-2.5%
f. I have been influenced by the change in the law itself-i.e., since possession is now labeled only
as a civil infraction, I don't feel it is much of a problem-26.58%
changedattitudestowardmarijuanapossession,a substantialminorityof the officers

respondedthat their attitudechangewas influencedby the change in the law itself.
Thus, the police surveyindicatesthat a minority(28.7%)have reducedtheirenforce-
ment effortsin regardto possessionandthat this is attributablein partto decriminiza-
tion per se.
The discrepancybetweenthe data in the arrestrecordsand the police surveyis
perplexing.Perhaps the officers in the survey respondedas they did becausethey
overestimatedthe changein theirown attitudesand behavioror becausethey felt the
researcherexpectedto hearthat theirenforcementeffortswerereduced.On the other
hand, if the officersreportinga decreasein theirarrestingbehaviorare accurate,how
can the discrepancywith the arrestrecordsbe explained?It is possiblethat these of-
ficers are encounteringa higherincidenceof marijuanause but elect not to arrestor
cite offendersas often (proportionally)as they usedto. For example,assumethat un-
derthe old law these officersencounteredten cases of possessionandarrestedor cited
the violatorin nine,whilesincethe newlaw theseofficersare encountering15casesof
possessionbut arrestor issue a citationin only ten of the cases. If this situationwere
to occur,therewouldbe a slightincreasein the numberof actualpoliceinterventions
but a proportionaldecrease in arrestingbehavior. This explanationis somewhat
tenuous, however, and goes against the student survey and arrest record data
presentedin the previoussectionwhichconcludedthat therehas not beenan increase
in the use of marijuana.The best that can be said is that thereis at least some, but by
no means conclusive, evidence that the decriminalizationlaw has resulted in a
decreaseof the enforcementefforts of the police.
As for the impact of the law on the enforcementefforts of the prosecutingat-
torney, it appearsthat the law has strengthenedsuch efforts. Specifically,while the
arrestsof minorshavegone downsomewhat(see Table4), Table7 showsthe prosecu-
tion of minorswho are arrestedhasgone up dramatically.Whenthe prosecutorwhois
chieflyresponsiblefor these types of cases was askedabouttheseresults,he indicated
Table7. Data BearingUpon the Prosecutor'sDiscretionaryBehavior,Defendants

RepresentingThemselves,and the Judges'DecisionMaking
Minors charged
with possession 1.92 5.75 20 -2.42 < 0.05
Adults charged
with possession 26.71 36.25 20 -1.4 N.S.
PDI 0.9 1.09 20 -1.06 N.S.
Cases dismissed
prior to trial
(all ages) 9.14 2.37 20 4.34 < 0.001
PD2 0.30 0.05 20 4.30 .< 0.001
Defendants
representing
themselves 18.07 30.75 20 -4.90 < 0.05
Defendants
judged not
guilty 0.64 0.25 20 1.34 N.S.
that he was unaware of any change but speculated that he was now more willing to file
charges against minors since no criminal record is involved. For adults both the mean
number of charges filed and the index PD1 (i.e., number of charges filed per month
against adults/number of adult arrests and citations per month) increased after the
new law went into effect but not significantly.
In addition to prosecuting more minors under the new law, the county attorney's
office has also enhanced enforcement by dismissing less cases once they have been
filed (see Table 7). Another measure of this use of prosecutorial discretion is the index
PD2 (i.e., the number of charges dismissed/the number of charges originally filed),
and it also shows a highly significant decrease under the new law. In the interview
where these data were discussed with the county attorney, he speculated that the great
reduction in the number of charges dismissed has occurred both because there is no
longer any need to shield individuals from the impact of a criminal record and because
the offense of possession is now at the lowest tier with respect to penalties, making it
impossible to bargin for a plea to a lesser offense. The data in Table 7 suggest an alter-
native explanation for the finding that the prosecutor is dismissing fewer cases.
Specifically, the data show that significantly more defendants are appearing without
attorneys since the new law went into effect. Under the old law possession was a mis-
demeanor and the state was obligated to provide an attorney for those defendants who
could not afford one, whereas under the new law, the state does not provide attorneys
for defendants since the offense is only civil. The prosecuting attorney also reported
that private attorneys are now less willing to take on simple possession cases because
of their civil nature and because their fee for handling them is usually more than the
mandatory $100 fine. Consequently, the number of defendants representing them-
selves has increased dramatically. In a discussion of this situation with a public de-
fender, he noted that when he was involved with these types of cases under the old law,
many of the charges were dismissed against his clients after he had discussed the
weakness of the case or the extenuating circumstances with the prosecutor and re-
64 SUGGS
quested her/him to dismiss the charges. The public defender then noted that most
defendants are simply not aware of the prosecutor's power to exercise discretion in
dismissing charges and would thus not be able to engage in this type of informal
resolution of the case against them.
As was noted at the outset of this section, it is possible that judges could be in-
fluenced by the decriminalization law to reduce their enforcement efforts by finding
more defendants not guilty of possession. The examination of the Lancaster County
court records, however, reveals that this is not occurring. Table 7 shows that in fact
fewer defendants are being judged not guilty, although the difference is not
statistically significant.
On the whole, it appears that the decriminalization law per se has not
significantly lessened enforcement efforts of the legal actors involved with the law.
The actual frequency of arrests and citations by police officers has not decreased, nor
has the frequency of judges ruling defendants not guilty increased. And while there is
some evidence from the police survey that a minority of officers feel that they have
reduced their enforcement efforts in this area, this possible reduction is offset by a
very large increase in the enforcement efforts on the part of the prosecuting attorney.
That is to say, more of the cases brought to the county attorney's office are actually
prosecuted. In this sense it can be said that decriminalization has had an overall effect
of enhancing the enforcement of the law against marijuana possession.
Assumption 4: Decriminalization will not lead to an increase in problems when
apprehending and adjudicating marijuana offenders. This assumption differs from the
one discussed just previously in that it is concerned not with the rigor by which the law
is enforced, but rather with whether the new law has created problems in the
police/offender relationship and whether offenders are presenting more problems in
terms of case management to the county attorneys and judges. These concerns were
first brought to light in the in-depth interviews conducted with the police, county at-
torneys, and judges.
In extensive interviews with several police officers, they stated that they felt the
interaction between offenders and the police was more abrasive since the new law went
into effect. By this they meant that offenders are now more willing to object to being
stopped by the police and to resist giving the information necessary for the officer to
make out a citation against them. The officers speculated that this new development
might be occurring because the offenders now feel more brave about resisting the
process since it is only a civil offense and the maximum fine possible has been reduced
from $500 to $100. Alternatively, they suggested that the interaction between police
and offender might be more conflict-ridden now because the offenders are upset about
the fact that the fine is now a mandatory $100-twice the usual fine under the old law.
Data from the student and police surveys and the arrest/citation records were ex-
amined to determine whether the phenomenon alluded to in the police interviews has
in fact occurred and to determine the principal cause behind this development.
From the student survey (See Table 8) it was found that approximately one-fifth
of the respondents felt that they would be more likely to give the police officer a "hard
time" given the provisions of the new law. About half of those who responded that
way indicated that the reason was that there would be nothing to gain through
cooperation since the fine is mandatory. In the police survey there was a similar find-
Table 8. Data Indicating That the New Law Has Increased the Conflict Between Police and
Offenders
College student survey (N = 135):

1. Assume that you are caught in possession of marijuana. Would you be more likely to give the police
officer a "hard time" now that the offense is only a civil infraction and the fine is mandatory?
a. yes-18.7%
b. no-80.5%
2. If you answered yes to the above question, is this because
a. you would feel braver about arguing with an officer now since it is only a civil offense-26%
b. you would feel more angry because the fine is now $100 rather than $50-28%
c. the fine is mandatory and you would have nothing to gain by being nice to or going along with
the officer-44%
Police officer survey (N = 108):

Of the options listed below, which one best describes your experiences in working with the new mari-
juana laws?
a. There have been no new problems associated with the new laws and the arrests are essentially
the same as before the change-74.1% agree
b. The police-violator contact is now more conflict ridden under the new law than it was before
the change-25%
ing. That is to say, 25% of the police agreed that the police-violator contact is now
more conflict-ridden under the new law than it was before the change (See Table 8). It
should be noted, however, that neither of the surveys gave the respondents an oppor-
tunity to respond that there is (or would be) less conflict now and therefore it is possi-
ble that this finding of more conflict may be artifactual.
Thus, while a large majority of the students and police feel that the new law has
not caused any new problems with the police-offender relationship, there may be a
minority who feel that the new law has caused the situation to be more conflict-ridden.
It also appears, however, that even if the situation at the time of intervention is more
tense, rarely does it rise to the level of a major confrontation. Evidence for this asser-
tion comes from the police arrest/citation records and from the police interviews. In
these interviews the officers noted that under the new law they still have the power to
arrest rather than cite an individual if it appears that the intervention process is get-
ting out of hand. They also stated that there has not been a decrease in the proportion
of citation/arrests since the new law. Thus, they were of the opinion that offender
reaction to the law has not led to an increased use of arrests rather than citations by
the police. The police records bear this out as shown in Table 9.
If the provisions of the decriminalization law cause more people to be braver or
more angry such that they are more willing to resist the legal process at the stage of
police intervention, then it might be expected that this offender resistance would con-
Table 9. Means for the Proportion of Citations to Total Police

Intervention Before and After the New Law
0.57 0.58 29 -0.33 N.S.
66 SUGGS
tinue through the legal process of adjudication. In fact, when initially interviewed, the
county attorney and judges bitterly complained about the new law, claiming that they
were being faced with a sharp increase in the number of contested marijuana cases.
They attributed this increase to a number of factors such as (a) the increase in the level
of the fine; (b) the mandatory nature of the fine; and (c) the fact that public defenders
are not appointed and thus do not advise the offenders that in the vast majority of
cases they simply have no legal defense. The county attorney and the judges were so
upset about this increase in contested eases that they instituted a procedure whereby a
defendant could waive any defense and pay the fine directly to the county court clerk
without any court hearing. They reported that this procedure was then explicitly
advertised to every marijuana defendant.
The reason why these officials would be upset by an increase in contested mari-
juana cases is that they take an inordinate amount of time to litigate as compared
to other civil infractions or even most misdemeanor cases. This is because many
marijuana defendants raise as a defense a charge that the search and seizure of the
alleged marijuana was unconstitutional. Rarely do other types of civil infraction or
misdemeanor cases involve the litigation of constitutional issues. In addition, the trial
of every possession case requires that the state prove an unbroken chain of custody of
the confiscated substance from the time it was first seized until the time of trial. Thus,
the state must call as witnesses (a) the arresting policeman to testify that he con-
fiscated the alleged marijuana and then turned it over to the police property officer;
(b) the property officer to testify that he received the substance from the arresting of-
ficer, that he turned it over to the state chemist, and that he received it back from the
chemist after testing; and (c) the state chemist to testify that he received the particular
substance for testing, that he tested and found it to be marijuana, and that he returned
the particular sample to the police property officer. The presentation of all of this
evidence takes much more time than the presentation of evidence in other minor
offenses of the magnitude of marijuana possession and thus works to slow the progress
of all cases through the county court.
The court records of Lancaster County were examined to determine whether the
attorney's and judge's perceptions of an increase in the number of contested cases was
accurate. This analysis revealed that there had been such an increase since the new law
went into effect but that it was not quite statistically significant (see Table 10).
It should be pointed out that while this increase is not statistically significant it is
easy to understand why it is significant in the minds of the judges and the county at-
torney since they now have to deal with more than twice as many contested cases as
they did under the old law.
Interestingly though, the court records also revealed that the number of cases
where the defendant pleaded guilty also increased dramatically under the new law and
this increase was highly significant (See Table 10). This finding suggests that the in-
crease in the number of contested cases is due to the fact that the county attorney is
prosecuting more cases now instead of dismissing many of the charges (See Table 7).
The implication is that there are more contested cases now because there are more
charges of all kinds prosecuted rather than there being a disproportionate increase in
contested cases only.
A new variable was created equal to the number of contested cases/number of in-
Table10. Meansfor Contestedand NoncontestedCasesBeforeand Afterthe New Law

Contested cases 0.71 1.87 20 -1.91 0.07
Noncontested cases 15.21 31.87 20 -3.74 0.001
dividuals charged with possession, and the analysis of this variable demonstrated that
the number of contested cases has not undergone a disproportionate increase (See
Table 11).
After performing this analysis the results were shown to the prosecuting attorney
for his comment. He was genuinely surprised at the increase in the number of non-
contested cases and by the fact that contested cases have not disproportionately in-
creased. This leads one to suspect that attorneys, like all of us, are probably hyper-
sensitive to situations which cause us problems and tend to ignore the frequency of
situations which are easily resolved.
To briefly summarize this section, it appears that decriminalization may have
contributed to some problems in the police/offender relationship with that situation
possibly now being somewhat more abrasive under the new law. If such a problem ex-
ists, it appears to be minor, however, in that there has not been a reduction in the
proportion of citations to arrests. In regard to the adjudication process, there has been
an increase in the number of contested cases but this appears to be a result of the fact
that the county attorney has increased his prosecution efforts by not dismissing as
many charges as before the new law. It is noteworthy, however, that there was not a
decrease in contested cases as expected by the legislators.
DISCUSSION
When Nebraska's law which decriminalized possession of small amounts of

marijuana is evaluated in terms of the validity of its implicit psychological and
behavioral assumptions, it appears that, for the most part, it is a success. The
legislature assumed that the new civil infraction law would be regarded as less
traumatic than the old misdemeanor law even though the new law also effectively
doubles the monetary penalty imposed for possession. The interviews with actual
marijuana offenders and the surveys of college students and police officers bear out
the validity of this assumption.
Since the legislators specifically stated that they did not view decriminalization as
in any way condoning or lessening their opposition to the use of marijuana, they must
have also assumed that the new law would not encourage or increase such use. Again,
Table 11. Means for the Proportion of Contested Cases Before and
After the New Law
0.047 0.047 20 -0.01 N.S.
68 SUGGS
all the data assembledto studythis issueindicatethatthe assumptionof the legislators

has been fulfilled. First of all, it would be unreasonableto expect that the
decriminalizationlawper se wouldleadto an increasein marijuanause whenthe data
show that only a minority (roughly 40%) of the college students and marijuana
offendersstudiedwere awareof any changein the law and an even smallerminority
(28%)of the college studentsrecognizedthe particularprovisionsof the new law.
Furthermore,afterbeingmadeawareof the provisionsof the newlaw, only 13%of the
studentssurveyedfelt that decriminalizationwouldlead to an increaseduse of mari-
juana. Finally,if it can be assumedthat an increasein the use of marijuanawouldbe
reflectedin an increasein arrestsor citationsfor marijuanapossession,thenthe police
recordsshowingno statisticallysignificantincreasein suchpoliceinterventionscan be
used to argue that the new law has not increasedmarijuanause.
The data relatingto the assumptionthat decriminalization will not influencelaw
enforcementofficialsto reducetheirenforcementeffortsare mixed.On the one hand,
the arrestand citationdata showingno differencesin arrestsandcitationscan be used
to arguefor the validityof the assumptionin relationto police officers.Yet, on the
otherhand,20.4%of the officerssurveyedclaimedthat theyhaddecreasedslightlythe
numberof arrestsand citationsfor marijuanapossessionand 8.3%claimedthat they
had greatly decreasedsuch interventionswhile only 3.7%claimedthat they had in-
creasedtheir numberof arrests.This discrepancyis perplexingbut may indicatethat
thesepoliceare misperceivingtheirbehaviorunderthe newlaw. The discrepancymay
also mean, however,that there is a greaterincidenceof marijuanause and that of-
ficers are arrestingfewer (proportionally)marijuanaoffenders.Thus, there may be
some evidencethat the new law has had a negativeimpacton the resolveof the police
to enforcethe law. Evenif it is true,however,thattherehas beena decrementin police
enforcementefforts,that reductionis morethanoffsetby the verylargeincreasein the
proportionof cases prosecutedby the countyattorney'soffice. The prosecutoris now
filing more charges against minors even though fewer are being arrested,and the
prosecutoris also not subsequentlydroppingnearlyas manychargesas was the case
underthe old law. Thus,underthe new law it is almosta certaintythat once a person
is caughtin possessionof marijuana,he/she will actuallybe prosecuted;whereasun-
derthe old law therewas a significantprobabilitythatthe chargeswouldultimatelybe
dismissedpriorto the adjudication.Furthermore,thereis no evidenceto indicatethat
moredefendantsare now beingfoundinnocentunderthe new law. If effectivelaw en-
forcementis definedas beingthe case wherethose who are identifiedas breakingthe
law are actuallyprosecutedand convicted,then it wouldappearthat decriminalizing
the possessionof marijuanahas actuallyincreasedthe effectivenessof society'ssanc-
tion against the use of the drug.
The validityof the final assumption-that decriminalizationwill not createnew
problemsin the apprehensionand adjudicationof offenders-may be questionable.It
appearsthat there are costs associatedwith decriminalizationand that the new law
has not livedup to expectationsin the areaof adjudication.The reasonswhy it can be
said that the new law may have createdproblemsin regardto the apprehensionof
offendersis that a small proportionof the studentssurveyed(roughly20%)statedthat
they would now be more willingto give the police officer a hardtime at the time of
originalpolice intervention.In addition,about 25%of the police officersresponded
that the police/offender interaction is now more conflict-ridden.It should be

rememberedthough that the surveyswere not balancedsuch that a "less conflict"
responsecould be given. It is questionable,however,whetherthis effect, if it is real,is
attributableto decriminalizationper se since many of the studentsattributedthe
willingnessto be more aggressiveto the level of the new fine and to the fact that it is
mandatory.To determinewhetherdecriminalization per se leads to a more abrasive
police/offender relationshipthis variable will need to be studied in states where
decriminalization has not beenaccompaniedby increasedandmandatoryfines.In the
meantime,since there is no evidencethat a mandatoryfine contributesto deterring
marijuanause, the NebraskaLegislaturemight wish to changethe law to make the
fine discretionary.If this weredoneand madeknownto the offenderat the time of in-
tervention,it is likely that the offenderwouldthen restrainhis/her aggressivefeelings
in the hope that he/she would not receivea maximumfine.
The mandatorynatureof the fine also has implicationsforthe adjudicativephase
of the legal processingof marijuanaoffenders.While the legislatorsexpectedthat
moredefendantswouldsimplyelect to pleadguiltyunderthe new law, in the original
interviewswith the county attorneyand countyjudges they bitterlycomplainedthat
they werebeingconfrontedwith an increasein contestedcases. The analysisof actual
court recordsrevealedthat whiletherewas an increasein contestedcases, it was not
quite statisticallysignificant.The data also revealedthat there was a significantin-
crease in pleadedcases and that the increasein both types of cases is probablyat-
tributableto the fact that the prosecutoris not dismissingas manycasesunderthe new
law. The county attorneyand countyjudges spoke out forcefullyin favor of a dis-
cretionaryfine, arguingthat defendantshavenothingto lose by contestingtheircases
when the fine is mandatory. The logic of this argument seems sound and the
legislaturemight well wish to modify the law to ease the burdenon the county
prosecutorsand county court.
The findings of this research are relevant not only to an evaluationof the
Nebraskalaw but to the evaluationof the impact of the decriminalizationof mari-
juana in otherstates. In orderto showhow the findingsof this projectare relevantto
the issue of marijuanadecriminalizationin general,it is first necessaryto give a cap-
sule overview of researchundertakento evaluate such decriminalizationin other
states. That researchhas shownthat (a) decriminalizationdoes not lead to increased
marijuanausage (at least in the short term); (b) arrests for marijuanapossession
decreaseafterdecriminalization; (c) verysignificantfinancialsavingsaccrueto the use
of citationproceduresratherthan traditionalarrestprocedures;(d) as a resultof the
fewer number of arrests there are fewer defendantsprocessedthroughthe court
system, thus saving the court system's resources;and (e) there are fewer contested
casesunderdecriminalizationlaws(See Roffman,1977).Whenconsideringthe results
of the researchon Nebraska'sexperiencewithdecriminalization in comparisonto the
general findingsoutlinedabove, it is obvious that Nebraska'sexperienceis at con-
siderablevariancewith the generalfindingsregardingarrestrates and the impactof
the law on the prosecutionand adjudicationphaseof the legal process.This research
on the impact of Nebraska's law has also shown some evidence suggestingthe
possibilitythat there may be psychologicalcosts associatedwith the decriminaliza-
tion-i.e., the increasein conflictbetweenoffendersand the police.Thesedifferences
70 SUGGS
indicate that the impact of decriminalization may well vary as a function of (a) the
particular scheme employed to implement it; (b) the attitudes of the offenders and the
legal actors toward the particular provisions of the law; and (c) the attitudes of the
offenders and legal actors with regard to marijuana and law enforcement in general.
For example, it is suspected that much of the variance between Nebraska's ex-
perience and that of other states decriminalizing marijuana possession stems from the
fact that Nebraska not only de-escalated the legal label attached to possession but also
effectively doubled the fine and made it mandatory. This probably served to check the
erosion of the police officers' resolve to enforce the law, but probably helps account
for the fact that contested cases in Nebraska have not been reduced. In addition, it is
highly possible that the fact that the police have not dramatically reduced their en-
forcement efforts and that the prosecutor has increased her/his efforts is the result of
a regional difference in attitudes toward marijuana and "law and order": e.g., the use
of marijuana may be considered as more serious in Nebraska. Thus, while all of the
research to date indicates that decriminalization does not lead to increased marijuana
use, we will not have a complete understanding of the impact of decriminalization un-
til studies are done which compare and contrast specific decriminalization typologies
while taking into account differences in attitudes toward marijuana and law enforce-
ment.
The findings of this study do not give high marks to all aspects of Nebraska's new
law decriminalizing marijuana. There has not been a marked decrease in contested
cases as was anticipated. These problems are probably not attributable to
decriminalization per se, however, but rather they seem to be a function of the in-
creased and mandatory nature of the fine. The lesson to be learned from this is that
decriminalization laws with inconsistent provisions (i.e., de-escalating the legal label
but escalating the actual penalty) may well exacerbate the problems in regulating the
proscribed behavior.
In sum, Nebraska's experience with the decriminalization of marijuana indicates
that decriminalization tends to increase the effectiveness of society's sanction against
proscribed behavior with less cost to the individual and society. The decriminaliza-
tion of marijuana-in Nebraska and other states-came at a time of increased drug
usage, and because of this increased use it was politicaly acceptable to decriminalize
possession. Other victimless crimes are probably not increasing in frequency parallel
to marijuana use and thus there is unlikely to be a significant political motivation to
decriminalize them. But given the relative success of marijuana decriminalization it
appears that the legislators ought to consider employing the decriminalization of a
wide range of behaviors now labeled as criminal.
At the risk of being redundant, it also needs to be pointed out that the findings of
this research have significance for the general theory of decriminalization. It will be
remembered that the basic rationale behind decriminalization is that it will still effec-
tively sanction and control "deviant" behavior with less cost to the individual offender
and to society. This research has shown that generally people do perceive civil infrac-
tions as less traumatic even when coupled with a heavier and mandatory fine. Since
decriminalization has been advocated for the most part with respect to victimless
crimes for which there is usually a developed subculture-e.g., drug use, prostitution,
gambling, and consensual adult homosexual acts-this perception of decriminaliza-
tion laws may help to keep the membersof the respectivesubculturesfrom feelingas
alienatedfrom the rest of society.
This study has shownthat marijuanause does not increaseafter possessionhas
been decriminalized.There is no logical reason to anticipatethat other victimless
criminal behaviorwould increase once the label placed on the behaviorhas been
changedfrom "criminal"to "civil."This is most probablybecausevictimlesscrimes
are usually undertakenfor psychologicalrather than economic satisfaction and
becausemost peopleare simplynot fully awareof the provisionsof the laws regard-
ing such behavior.
Since no empiricaldecreasein police arrestingbehaviorwas foundand sincethe
prosecutor'senforcementeffortswereactuallyincreasedafter the implementationof
Nebraska'smarijuanalaw, it can be said that the new law actuallyfacilitateslaw en-
forcement.This finding is encouragingto the decriminalizationof other victimless
crimesbecausethere is no reasonto expect the police and prosecutors'enforcement
effortsto be any differentwithrespectto those behaviors.Manyvictimlesscrimesare
publiclyfrowneduponwhileprivatelythey are practicedby largesegmentsof society.
Whenthese widespreadbehaviorsare labeledas criminal,the police and prosecutors
are understandably ambivalentaboutenforcingthe laws.Whenthe criminalsanctions
are removed,however,society'senforcementagentscan vigorouslysatisfy the law's
demandswithoutfeeling as hypocritical,thus leadingto more efficientlaw enforce-
ment.
REFERENCES
Bower, C. P., Padia, W. L., & Glass, G. V. TMS. Two Fortran IV programs for analysis of time-series
experiments.Boulder,Colorado:Laboratoryof EducationalResearch,Universityof Colorado,
1974.
Cuskey,W. R., Berger,L. H., & Richardson,A. H. Theeffectsof marijuanadecriminalizationon druguse
patterns:A literaturereviewandresearchcritique.Contemporary DrugProblems,1978,7, 491-532.
Galliher,J. F., McCartney,J. L., & Baum, B. E. Nebraska'smarijuanalaw: A case of unexpected
legislativeinnovation.Law and Society Review, 1974,8, 441-454.
Kurzman,M. G., & Magell, H. Decriminalizing possessionof all controlledsubstances:An alternative
whose time has come. Contemporary Drug Problems, 1977, 6, 245-260.
McCain, L. J., & McCleary,R. The statisticalanalysisof the simple interruptedtime-seriesquasi-
experiment In T. D. Cook & D. T. Campbell, Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for
Field Settings,Chicago:Rand McNally, 1979.
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. Marijuana: A study of state policies and penalties: Vol. 3: Research and
case studies.A reportpreparedfor the NationalGovernors'Conference,March 1977.
Roffman,R. A. Marijuanaand its controlin the late 1970's.ContemporaryDrug Problems,1977,6,
533-552.

Springer: Springer Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To Law and Human Behavior

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Springer: Springer Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To Law and Human Behavior

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Springer: Springer Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To Law and Human Behavior

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of the Impact of Nebraska's Decriminalization of

A Qualitative and QuantitativeAnalysis

On January1, 1979Nebraskadecriminalized first-offensepossessionof an ounceor lessof marijuana.This

In the last ten yearstherehas beena considerableincreasein supportfor the proposi-

*Associate,Donovan,Leisure,Newton & Irvine;New York, N.Y.

First of all, the theory assumesthat decriminalizationwill be perceivedas less

At present,the legal theoryof decriminalizationhas been appliedto only a few

THE HISTORYAND LEGISLATIVEINTENTOF MARIJUANA

2See NEB. REV. STAT., ?? 28-451 to 28-470 (1943).

juana with the opiumderivativesand made the possessionof marijuanaa felony.The

marijuanasmokersapprehendedby law enforcementremainedthe same but that the

For possession of from one ounce to one pound of marijuana,the punishmentis

'See ? 24-416,NEB.REV.STAT.(Cum. Supp. 1974).

those who wishedto (a) eliminatethe problemof young peoplehavinga permanent

THE BEHAVIORALASSUMPTIONSIMPLICITIN THE NEW

As often happens in field researchwhere controls and manipulationsare not

for possessionof marijuanawheneverpossible,Lincolnand Omahahad voluntarily

5. a numberof demographicquestions(i.e., age, religion,politicalaffiliation,

attitudestowardthe process;the ways in whichdefenseattorneyshave respondedto

Marijuana offenders (N = 15):

College students (N = 135):

Police officers (N = 108):

was an improvementbecause of the civil infractionprovision,and less than half

Table 2. Data Relating to Public Awareness of the Decriminalization Law

Marijuana offenders (N = 15):

College students (N = 135):

Police officers (N = 108):

Table 3. College Students' Perceptions of the New Law

Table 4. Differences in Arrest and Citation Frequencies for Marijuana Possession

Table 5. Police Officers' Responses to Survey Questions Relating to Enforcement Practices

month and, on the other hand, if there is a subsequentjudicialdeterminationthat a

changedattitudestowardmarijuanapossession,a substantialminorityof the officers

Table7. Data BearingUpon the Prosecutor'sDiscretionaryBehavior,Defendants

College student survey (N = 135):

Police officer survey (N = 108):

Table 9. Means for the Proportion of Citations to Total Police

Table10. Meansfor Contestedand NoncontestedCasesBeforeand Afterthe New Law

When Nebraska's law which decriminalized possession of small amounts of

all the data assembledto studythis issueindicatethatthe assumptionof the legislators

that the police/offender interaction is now more conflict-ridden.It should be

You might also like