A new study from the Rand Corporation calls into question one of the key contentions of the drug-reform movement: that many low-level drug offenders are unfairly sent to prison, particularly for marijuana-related crimes.

The study, "Just Cause or Just Because? Prosecution and Plea-Bargaining Resulting in Prison Sentences on Low-Level Drug Charges in California and Arizona," found that most people who were imprisoned on seemingly low-level drug charges had plea-bargained down from higher-level offenses, had prior criminal records, were involved with hard drugs like heroin or cocaine, or had been arrested in possession of large amounts of drugs.

The study looked at the prison populations of both states prior to voters passing referenda demanding that low-level drug offenders be placed in addiction-treatment programs rather than being sent to prison. "Low-level" is generally understood to mean offenders charged with use or possession of a small amount of drugs or possession of drug paraphernalia.

During 1998 and 1999 -- the two years prior to California voters passing Proposition 36 -- 68 percent of offenders convicted of "low-level" crimes in the state were found to have had a prior drug conviction on their record, half had possessed hard drugs, and just 3 percent of cases had involved marijuana only. In Arizona, those convicted of low-level drug offenses between 1996 and 2000 (the year voters initially approved the reform-minded Proposition 200) had an average of 17 prior criminal offenses on their record.

"The low-level label is misleading," said Jack Riley, the study's lead author and associate director of the Rand Infrastructure, Safety, and Environment program. "Many people backed these initiatives because they believed prisons were crowded with low-level offenders. However, we found that the people sent to prison on drug charges were not law-abiding citizens who simply made one mistake."

The study only looked at prison inmates, however, and Riley noted: "We cannot say ... whether large numbers of low-level offenders may be in jails, as opposed to prisons."

Will Brownsberger, a criminal defense attorney who also serves as Join Together's senior criminal-justice advisor, agreed that "very few people are doing time for drug possession only."

"At the state prison level, drug prisoners are virtually always serving time for dealing," said Brownsberger. "At the jail level, it is hard to tell because dealing charges are frequently reduced to possession in plea bargaining. But my experience and research indicate that true possession cases rarely end up even in jail, at least in 'blue' states."

Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, suggested that the Rand study authors missed the point of Prop 36 and Proposition 200.

"The principal rationale underlying both ballot initiatives was to reduce the incarceration of people for using and possessing drugs," said Nadelmann. "No one ever said that the Americans who get arrested for drug possession are angels, or only involved with marijuana, or innocent of ever having broken another law."

"Citizens in both Arizona and California correctly believed that they were spending substantial sums to prosecute and imprison people who were not involved in serious predatory crime, and who might benefit from alternatives to incarceration. That's why they approved both initiatives by large margins," Nadelmann contended.

Prosecutors in both states had opposed the initiatives out of concern that they would reduce incentives for people accused of drug crimes to plea bargain, and they told Rand researchers that they were unlikely to drop low-level drug charges on offenders who had a long or violent criminal history.

Following the implementation of Arizona's Proposition 200, prosecution of marijuana cases decreased, Rand researchers found. Prosecution and imprisonment of paraphernalia offenders with serious criminal histories rose, however. And Arizona's Proposition 200 seemed to have little effect on diversion of offenders to drug treatment or sentencing of minor offenders.

The Rand researchers also found no evidence of racial bias in plea-bargaining patterns in either state -- another argument that reform advocates had used to press for treatment alternatives to incarceration in California and Arizona.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Substance Abuse Policy Research Program provided funding for the Rand study.

Read the report: "Just Cause or Just Because? Prosecution and Plea-Bargaining Resulting in Prison Sentences on Low-Level Drug Charges in California and Arizona"