Assessing Police Attitudes Toward Drugsand Drug Enforcement

Matthew Petrocelli & Trish Oberweis &

Michael R. Smith & Joseph Petrocelli

Received: 3 November 2012 /Accepted: 31 January 2013# Southern Criminal Justice Association 2013

Abstract The American War on Drugs has been a long and protracted battle. On thefront lines are local, state and federal drug enforcement officers who are tasked withpursuing drug users and dealers. Empirically, officers’ attitudes about the laws theyuphold have been shown to impact how aggressively they enforce those laws and thediscretion they employ. Although there is a well established body of literature whichdocuments the importance of discretionary dynamics in many areas of law enforce-ment, we know almost nothing about narcotics officers’ attitudes toward drugs anddrug enforcement. Hence, we are unaware of extremely important variables thatalmost certainly impact and influence front line drug officers. This study fills thatgap by examining the survey responses of over 1,000 drug interdiction officers at alllevels of law enforcement, measuring their attitudes toward various drugs and therelative harm they incur, along with existing and proposed policies and strategies. Theresults are discussed in terms of their enforcement and policy implications.

Keywords Police attitudes . Drug enforcement .War on drugs

Introduction and Background

It is no secret that America has a problem with drug abuse and that the nation spendsbillions of dollars each year in an effort to control the illicit drug trade. Drug abuse isa problem for millions of Americans, as well as for their families and communities.According to the Office of National Drug Control and Prevention, “the Federal

Am J Crim JustDOI 10.1007/s12103-013-9200-z

M. Petrocelli (*) : T. OberweisSouthern Illinois University, Edwardsville, IL, USAe-mail: mpetroc@siue.edu

M. R. SmithUniversity of Texas, El Paso, TX, USA

J. PetrocelliPassaic County Sheriff’s Office, Passaic, NJ, USA

Government has spent…$10.1 billion in FY 2012 for substance abuse prevention andtreatment programs” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/2012-national-drug-control-strategy). But this figure pales in comparison to the much more costly expenseof drug enforcement. Harvard University professor of economics Jeffery Miron, forexample, provides an annual enforcement estimate of $44.1 billion (Miron, 2008). ACato Institute report estimates that in 2008, the federal and state governments spentapproximately $41.3 billion on drug enforcement (Miron & Waldock, 2010).

A wide range of experts have weighed in with their perspectives on our nationaldrug policy. Economists such as Milton Friedman, academics (Inciardi, 2008), judges(Gray, 2000), treatment advocates and policy-makers have made their views known,either in favor of strict drug enforcement or opposed to it. These views raise importantquestions in light of decades of academic research linking social norms and compli-ance with enforcement of the law (Tyler, 1990). Moreover, as the tide of publicopinion waivers in its anti-drug stance, questions about the connections betweensocial norms, compliance with, and enforcement of the law arise. For example, arecent Gallup Poll reports that half of Americans support the legalization of marijuana(Newport, 2011). Yet, marijuana remains criminalized in the vast majority of states.

What is largely absent from this discussion is any large-scale or scientific study ofthe perspective of police. These officers are the ones tasked with enacting our drugcontrol policies at the street level. They are on the front line of the drug war andarrested over 1.6 million Americans last year alone for drug offenses, another 1.4million for driving the under the influence, and yet another million for drunkennessand liquor law violations (Crime in the United States 2011, fbi.gov). Their attitudesabout drugs and drugs enforcement matter a great deal, as their perceptions about the“war on drugs” almost certainly impact and influence front line enforcement anddiscretion. As Gaines and Kappeler (2005, 266-267) assert:

Often mentioned as justification for discretion is the lack of system capacity toarrest, prosecute and incarcerate every individual who commits a crime. Evenbeyond the system’s capacity is the officer’s perception of inequities in the lawand the justice system that stem from statutes that are overreaching, ambiguous,obsolete, or are contrary to the community’s needs and expectations.

If officers’ attitudes about the law and how the system implements the law havebeen shown to be significant in other realms of policing, it is logical to assume thatthey are relevant to drug enforcement, also. Given the enormity of the US drugenforcement effort, it is clear that by failing to measure and interpret officers’attitudes about drugs and drug policy, we are missing critical information that affectsour national drug enforcement strategies.

Much work has been done of late that underscores the importance of knowledgeabout police attitudes. Recent research has looked at police attitudes as a mechanismto study both gender difference (Poteveva & Sun, 2009; Carlan, 2009) and culturaldifference (Sun & Chu, 2008). Wells and Schafer (2007) examined the role of policeattitudes in limiting the power and scope of citizen review boards (which serve as anexternal check on alleged police misbehavior). Several studies have examined theimpact of police officer attitudes in handling rape cases (Page, 2007, 2008; Brown,1998; Campbell & Johnson, 1997). Most recently, for example, Page (2007) foundthat officers with more experience with rape investigations were less likely to accept

Am J Crim Just

rape myths. This attitudinal difference is important because those police officers withgreater acceptance of rape myths were less likely to find the victim credible. Thispersonal belief structure has implications for criminal investigations and the potentialsuccess of legal reforms (Page, 2008).

Related to this, Worden (1989) points to an assumed connection between officers’attitudes and their actions. The more than two decades of research between Worden’swork and the present has elevated the connection from one that is “assumed” to one thathas a significant empirical basis. Oberweis and Musheno (2001) look at the connectionbetween police officers’ identity and their perceptions of themost just course of action inresponding to both citizens and their peers. Similarly, work in Canada has beenundertaken to understand the impact of an offender’s prior contact with law enforcementon police attitudes toward diverting youthful offenders from formal criminal justiceprocessing (Marinos & Innocente, 2008). Although the intent of the new Canadian lawwas for the seriousness of the offense to determine which cases would be diverted, infact, officers relied more heavily on prior contact than offense seriousness. Again, thisstudy underscores the role of officer attitudes in deciding how to act to bring law to life.Other studies have examined the connection between officer attitudes and their actionswith regard to using force (Barrett, Haberfeld, & Walker, 2009). In short, our best andmost recent studies of American law enforcement suggest that police attitudes matterwhen it comes to the enforcement of criminal justice policy.

Despite the increased focus on police officer attitudes in other areas, there is almostnothing known about police officers’ attitudes about drug enforcement. This paper isintended to explore this widely understudied area. In framing our research, we foundjust three published articles that roughly addressed this issue. One study undertakenin Australia looked at the perspectives of “criminal justice professionals” includingpolice officers, but also including judges, correctional workers and a variety of otherprofessionals (Beyer, Crofts, & Reid, 2002). This group of professionals favored asurprisingly wide range of policies for heroin control, many of which relegate controlto agencies outside the criminal justice system (mental health or medical professio-nals, for example). A second article looks only at police attitudes about needleexchange programs (Beletsky, Macalina, & Burris, 2005). The final study used asmall sample of 100 police officers from one city to explore their policy preferences(Moore and Palmiotto (1997). These officers often supported an expanded focus ondrug user (as opposed to sellers or producers), and stricter punishment for dealers, aswell (1997:37). A finding of considerable interest is that “while patrol officersrecommended more severe punishment, they were skeptical about the War onDrugs. Instead of only supporting increased law enforcement, they supported mosttraditional policies, i.e. prevention, education and treatment” (1997:37).

One possible explanation for why we know very little about police attitudes towardenforcing drug laws may lie in the protected secrecy of the police subculture (Petrocelli& Smith, 2000). Ever cautious about public scrutiny, police are notoriously private aboutthe inner workings of their profession and guarded about their views in general.Researchers often try to get glimpses into their world, but this almost always entails alengthy process of winning their trust before any tangible or insightful information isdisclosed, especially when the research question is controversial.

Although the traditional preference for privacy is an obstacle to research, researchershave come to recognize the importance of learning about the perspective police.

Am J Crim Just

Whenever possible, efforts are made to learn more about the attitudes of law enforce-ment officers, particularly in recent years. Although, some time ago, Brooks, Piquero,and Cronin (1993) asserted that “Currently we know very little about police officerattitudes,” (1993:116) we find that much work has been done in the intervening years torectify this shortcoming in the literature. Indeed, there is a great deal of research lookingat police attitudes in many different areas of enforcement. Nonetheless, with regard todrug enforcement, it is certainly true that “empirical research on the attitudes of policeofficer is presently lacking” (1993:116).

Methodology

In designing the current research study, our intent was to help close the gap in theextant literature on police attitudes toward drug enforcement by surveying policeofficers who enrolled in a national drug interdiction training course. The course wastaught by the 4:20 Group (please see www.the420group.com), which is a premier lawenforcement consulting and training firm contracted by the Drug EnforcementAdministration (DEA). By its own definition, “the 4:20 Group offers training forCommercial Vehicle Interdiction, Passenger Vehicle Interdiction, CourtroomTestimony & Report Writing, Commercial Vehicle Investigations for officers. Thistraining is presented by experienced officers with years of successful interdictionresulting in the apprehension of some of America’s worst criminals, illegal drugs,millions of dollars in US currency, stolen weapons, and stolen equipment.” Thisgroup trains officers from a wide range of departments at the federal, state and locallevels. A member of our research team was an instructor for the 4:20 Group andserved to facilitate our administration of a detailed survey to more than 1,000 officersfrom around the country who attended 4:20 group training. In terms of surveyadministration, officers were asked to complete the survey at the conclusion of thecourse of instruction. Data collection lasted approximately one year during the courseof approximately 45 class separate class sessions. Our response rate was excellent,with well over 80 % of each class completing the questionnaire, resulting in 1,050total responses.

The survey captured a range of individual and agency-level variables, includingofficer experience, gender, race and ethnicity, as well as department type and size.Substantively, we measured variables related to basic policy attitudes such as whetherenforcement is too strict, adequate or not strict enough for a variety of illicit drugs.We also asked questions to elicit officers’ attitudes about the best policy options formanaging the nation’s drug offenders. Finally, the survey elicited officer attitudesabout a number of dimensions that emerge from the literature, such as relative harmdone to the individual, community and nation. It is significant to note that theresearch subjects represent a broad cross section of our national law enforcementcommunity in terms of geography, rank, years of service, departmental affiliation anda host of other demographics. To our knowledge, it is the only national sample of self-identified drug enforcement officers. Although not randomly drawn, this sample isquite broad and may at least approximate attitudes toward drug enforcement amongofficers who routinely enforce the nation’s drug laws as a significant part of theirofficial duties.

Am J Crim Just

Analysis

Demographics

We begin by painting the empirical portrait of the American drug interdiction officer.We collected data on twelve different variables relating to officer demographics.

Table 1 delineates the primary function, rank, gender, race, ethnicity, age andeducation of officers in our sample. Not unexpectedly, the vast majority worked ineither a patrol (48.6 %) or investigative (27.8 %) capacity. In terms of their rank, 61 %identified themselves as patrol (meaning nonsupervisory) officers, 8 % were sergeantsand another 10 % were special agents; the remainder of the sample was a smattering ofhigher ranking officers (lieutenant and above). Overwhelmingly, the officers surveyedwere male (93 %) with only 5.6 % of the sample being women. In terms of race, whiteofficers were clearly the dominant category, accounting for 85.8 % of the sample, withAfrican-American officers distantly trailing in second at 4.6 %. Ethnicity also proved tobe very homogeneous with nearly 81 % of the officers reporting non-Latino status. Theage of the officers showedmore significant variation, with 46.5 % of the sample rangingfrom 30 to 39 years old, 25 % ranging from 40 to 49 years old, and 22.8 % ranging from20 to 29 years old. These officers were also a fairly well educated group. Nearly half(46.8 %) claimed that they had some college and nearly a third (31.4 %) reported havingattained a bachelor’s degree. Interestingly, slightly more than 5 % had graduate degrees,while 2.6 % had some graduate credits. Only 12 % reported only having a high schooldiploma or GED as their highest level of education.

Table 2 denotes the type of community served by the officers’ agencies, thegeographic region of the department, the department type, the size of the department,and officers’ years of experience. In terms of identifying the type of area served, weobserved a neat split among our operationalized categories (Urban, Suburban orRural). Roughly a third of the officers fell into each category, with 34.3 % reportingthey served in an urban environment, 29.6 % in the suburbs and 29.2 % in a ruralsetting. The sample was also heterogeneous by way of regional affiliation. Twenty-nine percent worked in Southeastern part of the United States, 21.4 % in theNortheast, 21.4 % in the Northwest, 13 % in the Midwest, and 8.5 % in theSouthwest. Department type was dominated by municipal officers, accounting fornearly half of the sample (47.9 %). Additionally, 29.8 % of the officers reportedworking for a county/sheriff’s office, 14.4 % worked for a state agency, and 7 %operated in a federal capacity. The number of officers per department, showed a gooddeal of variability. Mirroring the nation’s law enforcement community, the majority(45.1 %) of officers worked in smaller departments (1–100 officers), followeddistantly by officers who worked in departments with 101–200 officers (12.2 %).Significantly, there was some representation (range 1.8 %–8.9 %) in every othernumerical category of the variable, indicating that departments of all sizes areincluded in the sample. Lastly, in terms of years of experience in law enforcement,we note that more junior than senior officers were represented in the sample.Specifically, 29.3 % of officers had less than 1 through 5 years of experience onthe job, 26 % had 6–10 years, and 22.4 % had 11–15 years. Only 11.8 % of thesample reported having 16–20 years experience, and the last 10 % of the officers had21–25 years (6.3 %) or 25–45 years (3.7 %).

Am J Crim Just

Table 1 Officer characteristicsName N %

Primary function

Patrol 510 48.6

Investigation 292 27.8

Internal affairs 2 .2

Other 152 14.5

Missing 94 9.0

Total 1050 100 %

Rank

Patrol 641 61.0

Sergeant 86 8.2

Lieutenant 20 1.9

Captain 13 1.2

Special Agent 107 10.2

Commander 5 .5

Chief 7 .7

Other 157 15.0

Missing 14 1.3

Total 1050 100 %

Gender

Male 977 93.0

Female 59 5.6

Missing 14 1.3

Total 1050 100 %

Race

Asian 27 2.6

African American 48 4.6

Native American 11 1.0

White 901 85.8

Bi-racial 16 1.5

Other 37 3.5

Missing 10 1.0

Total 1050 100 %

Hispanic/Latino

Non-Latino 848 80.8

Latino 81 7.7

Missing 121 11.5

Total 1050 100 %

Age

20–29 239 22.8

30–39 488 46.5

40–49 262 25.0

50–59 47 4.5

60–69 8 .8

Am J Crim Just

Attitudes Toward National Drug Enforcement

Table 3 below reports officers’ attitudes toward federal laws for drug possession in termsof strictness and attitudes toward federal laws for manufacture or sale of drugs. For drugpossession, responses were remarkably similar, with one exception. For every drugexcept steroids, over 50 % of the officers surveyed reported that possession laws were“not strict enough” (range 50.6 %–58.7 %). Interestingly, most officers thought thatpossession laws for marijuana (58.7 %), arguably the most benign drug presented, werenot strict enough, followed closely by methamphetamines (57.4 %). Only 47.1 % of theofficers thought that possession laws for steroids were not strict enough while 47.9 %deemed them adequate. Again, there was almost uniform agreement among the officersconcerning the severity of drug manufacture or sale laws with most officers reportingthat such laws were not strict enough. As with their attitudes toward possession ofmarijuana, more officers believed that federal drug laws regulating the manufacture orsale of marijuana are too lenient than any other drug. Few officers indicated that federallaws were too strict, with responses ranging from 0.2 % (ecstasy, methamphetamines,and hallucinogens) through 3 % (marijuana).

When queried about the relative harm that certain drugs do to the nation, officersreported that three drugs were particularly destructive (see Table 4 above). More than90 % of respondents asserted that crack, heroin and methamphetamines were either“very harmful” or “harmful” to the country. Perceptions of harmfulness then dropnoticeably, with 79.3 % reporting harm from hallucinogens, followed by cocaine(78.5 %) and ecstasy (74.2 %). Somewhat anomalously given the findings fromTable 3, the drug deemed to cause the least national harm was marijuana, with54.6 % claiming it was either harmful or very harmful, followed by steroids at46.9 % for the categories of harmful or very harmful. The marijuana finding for thisvariable is particularly noteworthy; while officers felt possession and manufacture/salelaws for marijuana were most problematic in terms of not being strict enough, they alsoreport that marijuana is one of the least problematic drugs in terms of national harmdone.

When asked about our national drug enforcement strategy (target users only, targetdealers only, target both equally), a clear preference emerged among our respondents.

Table 1 (continued)

Name N %

Missing 6 .6

Total 1050 100 %

Highest level of education

High school/GED 126 12.0

Some college 491 46.8

Bachelor’s degree 330 31.4

Some graduate school 27 2.6

Graduate degree 54 5.1

Missing 22 2.1

Total 1050 100 %

Am J Crim Just

Table 2 Departmental andregional characteristics

Name N %

Primary area department serves

Urban 360 34.3

Suburban 311 29.6

Rural 307 29.2

Missing 72 6.9

Total 1050 100 %

Location of department

Northeast 225 21.4

Southeast 302 28.8

Midwest 136 13.0

Southwest 89 8.5

Northwest 224 21.3

Missing 15 1.4

Total 1050 100 %

Department type

Municipal 503 47.9

County or Sheriff 313 29.8

State Agency 151 14.4

Federal Agency 74 7.0

Missing 9 .9

Total 1050 100 %

Number of officers per department

1–100 474 45.1

101–200 128 12.2

201–300 93 8.9

301–400 63 6.0

401–500 33 3.1

501–600 19 1.8

601–1000 57 5.4

1001–2000 72 6.9

2001–5000 35 3.3

5001–35000 76 7.2

Missing 41 3.9

Total 1050 100 %

Years of experience in policing

<1–5 308 29.3

6–10 273 26.0

11–15 235 22.4

16–20 124 11.8

21–25 66 6.3

25–45 39 3.7

Missing 5 .5

Total 1050 100 %

Am J Crim Just

Tab

le3

Officers’

attitudes

towardfederallawsfordrug

possession

Cocaine

Crack

Heroin

Ecstasy

Mariju

ana

Steroids

Methamphetam

ines

Hallucinogens

N(%

)N

(%)

N(%

)N

(%)

N(%

)N

(%)

N(%

)N

(%)

Attitudestowardfederallawsfordrug

possession

Not

strict

enou

gh56

1(53.4)

531(50.6)

541(51.5)

575(54.8)

616(58.7)

495(47.1)

603(57.4)

560(53.3)

Adequate

473(45.0)

487(46.4)

486(46.3)

447(42.6)

317(35.3)

503(47.9)

434(41.3)

468(44.6)

Toostrict

5(.5)

18(1.7)

6(.6)

6(.6)

53(5.0)

31(3.0)

4(.4)

4(.4)

Missing

11(1.0)

14(1.3)

17(1.6)

22(2.1)

10(1.0)

21(2.0)

9(.9)

18(1.7)

Total

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

Attitudestowardfederallawsfordrug

manufacture

orsale

Not

strict

enou

gh64

9(61.8)

631(60.1)

626(59.6)

632(60.2)

662(63.0)

560(53.3)

658(62.7)

620(59.0)

Adequate

387(36.9)

395(37.6)

405(38.6)

394(37.5)

345(32.9)

452(43.0)

378(36.0)

413(39.3)

Toostrict

3(.3)

10(1.0)

4(.4)

2(.2)

32(3.0)

20(1.9)

2(.2)

2(.2)

Missing

11(1.0)

14(1.3)

175(1.4)

22(2.1)

11(1.0)

18(1.7)

12(1.1)

15(1.4)

Total

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

Am J Crim Just

Tab

le4

Officers’

attitudes

towarddrug

harm

tothenatio

n

Cocaine

Crack

Heroin

Ecstasy

Mariju

ana

Steroids

Methamphetam

ines

Hallucinogens

N(%

)N

(%)

N(%

)N

(%)

N(%

)N

(%)

N(%

)N

(%)

Attitudestowarddrug

harm

tothenatio

n

Not

atallharm

ful

13(1.2)

15(1.4)

17(1.6)

12(1.1)

55(5.2)

73(7.0)

18(1.7)

17(1.6)

Som

ewhatharm

ful

13(1.2)

5(.5)

5(.5)

41(3.9)

136(13.0)

179(17.0)

7(.7)

40(3.8)

Neutral

72(6.9)

21(2.0)

25(2.4)

177(16.9)

264(25.1)

282(26.9)

30(2.9)

136(13.0)

Harmful

287(27.3)

163(15.5)

119(11.3)

310(29.5)

266(25.3)

219(20.9)

119(11.3)

262(25.0)

Veryharm

ful

643(61.2)

820(78.1)

860(81.9)

480(45.7)

308(29.3)

273(26.0)

856(81.5)

570(54.3)

Missing

22(2.1)

26(2.5)

24(2.3)

30(2.9)

21(2.0)

24(2.3)

20(1.9)

25(2.4)

Total

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

Attitudestowardmosteffectivedrug

enforcem

entstrategy

N%

Target

drug

users

373.5

Target

drug

dealers

380

36.2

Target

usersanddealersequally

616

58.7

Missing

171.6

Total

1050

100%

Attitudestowardchoice

ofprim

aryresponse

toreduce

drug

usein

society

N%

Fines

201.9

Supervision

with

atreatm

entrequirem

ent

151.4

Incarceration

475

45.2

Drugtreatm

entthroughadrug

court

239

22.8

Drugtreatm

entwith

outform

aldrug

courtsupervision

464.4

Other

152

14.5

Missing

103

9.8

Total

1050

100%

Am J Crim Just

Specifically, 58.7 % of the officers thought that pursuing both users and dealers wasthe most effective tactic in the War on Drugs, while 36.2 % reported that targetingdealers would be the most effective technique and only 3.5 % reported that targetingusers would be the best route. In terms of our best response to reduce drug usenationally, officers favored incarceration (45.2 %) by wide margin. Treatmentthrough a drug court was a distant second (22.8 %), and the other options (fines,supervision/required treatment, treatment without supervision) received very littlesupport.

Self Belief of Drug Harm

Next, we examine officers’ personal beliefs about the harm drugs do to the individualuser. Table 5 reports frequencies of the drugs our respondents felt were most harmful.Consistent with the findings relating to national harm done, officers report metham-phetamines (38 %) were the most injurious to the individual user, followed by heroin(22.5 %) and crack (11.1 %). Interestingly, prescription drugs (5.9 %), some “other”type of drug (5.1 %) and alcohol (5 %) were all rated as more personally harmful thancocaine, hallucinogens, marijuana, ecstasy or steroids (previously ranked by therespondents as being the least problematic drug), with percentage scores of theaforementioned ranging from 1.6 % - 0.1 %.

In order to further explore officers’ beliefs about the harmfulness of differenttypes of drugs to individual users, we cross-tabulated perceptions of harmful-ness with departmental type, nature of the community served, and geographicregion (see Tables 6 and 7 below). On the municipal level, officers rankedmethamphetamines (39 %) as the most harmful narcotics, followed by heroin(25.4 %) and crack (13.2 %). On the Sheriff/County level, officers also reportedmethamphetamines (43.7 %), heroin (22.4 %) and crack (11.2 %) as the mostharmful drugs. State-level officers demonstrated similar concerns about drugharmfulness, ranking methamphetamines as the most harmful followed by

Table 5 Officers’ belief of mostharmful drug

N %

Methamphetamines 399 38.0

Heroin 236 22.5

Crack 117 11.1

Prescriptions 62 5.9

Other 54 5.1

Alcohol 52 5.0

Cocaine 17 1.6

Hallucinogens 12 1.1

Marijuana 9 .9

Ecstasy 3 .3

Steroid 1 .1

Missing 88 8.4

Total 1050 100 %

Am J Crim Just

heroin and crack cocaine. Federal agents likewise ranked methamphetamines asthe most harmful drug, although a higher percentage of them perceived heroinas the most harmful drug than state and local officers. And unlike state andlocal officers, federal officers were about half as likely to rank crack as themost harmful drug. Interestingly, alcohol and prescription drugs were consid-ered more harmful to users than cocaine or even hallucinogens by drugenforcement officers at all levels.

Table 6 also cross-tabulates perceptions of drug harmfulness with primary areaserved (urban, suburban or rural). The results for the three most harmful drugs (crack,heroin, and methamphetamines) varied considerably by the nature of the communityserved. For example, a higher percentage of urban officers ranked crack as the mostharmful drug (15.8 %) when compared to suburban (9.0 %) or rural officers (10.7 %).

Table 6 Crosstabulation: Department type and primary area served by belief of most harmful drug

Municipal Sheriff or county State agency Federal agency Total

N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%)

Crosstabulation: department type by belief of most harmful drug

Cocaine 7 (1.5) 8(2.7) 1(.7) 1(1.6) 17(1.8)

Crack 61(13.2) 33(11.2) 17(12.7) 4(6.3) 115(12.1)

Heroin 117(25.4) 66(22.4) 31(23.1) 21(32.8) 235(24.6)

Alcohol 29(6.3) 12(4.1) 6(4.5) 5(7.8) 52(5.5)

Prescription 34(7.4) 19(6.4) 4(3.0) 4(6.3) 61(6.4)

Ecstasy 2(.4) 1(.3) 0(.0) 0(.0) 3(.3)

Marijuana 3(.7) 1(.3) 2(1.5) 3(4.7) 9(.9)

Steroids 1(.2) 0(.0) 0(.0) 0(.0) 1(.1)

Methamphetamines 180(39) 129(43.7) 64(47.8) 22(34.4) 395(41.4)

Hallucinogens 1(.2) 8(2.7) 8(2.7) 1(1.6) 12(1.3)

Other 26(5.6) 18(6.1) 18(6.1) 3(4.7) 54(5.7)

Total 461(100) 295(100) 134(100) 64(100) 954(100)

Crosstabulation: primary area served by belief of most harmful drug

Urban Suburban Rural Total

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

Cocaine 7(2.1) 6(2.1) 3(1.1) 16(1.8)

Crack 52(15.8) 26(9.0) 30(10.7) 108(12.0)

Heroin 69(21.0) 91(31.4) 61(21.8) 221(24.6)

Alcohol 23(7.0) 13(4.5) 13(4.6) 49(5.5)

Prescription 21(6.4) 25(8.6) 11(3.9) 57(6.3)

Ecstasy 1(.3) 1(.3) 1(.3) 3(.3)

Marijuana 2(.6) 2(.7) 4(1.4) 8(.9)

Steroids 1(.3) 0(.0) 0(.0) 1(.1)

Methamphetamines 132(40.1) 109(37.6) 138(49.3) 379(42.2)

Hallucinogens 1(.3) 3(1.0) 6(2.1) 10(1.1)

Other 20(6.1) 14(4.8) 13(4.6) 47(5.2)

Total 329(100) 290(100) 280(100) 899(100)

Am J Crim Just

Tab

le7

Officers’

attitudes

towarddecrim

inalizationandlegalization

Cocaine

Crack

Heroin

Ecstasy

Mariju

ana

Steroids

Methamphetam

ines

Hallucinogens

N(%

)N

(%)

N(%

)N

(%)

N(%

)N

(%)

N(%

)N

(%)

Attitudestowarddecrim

inalization

Stronglydisagree

762(72.6)

773(73.6)

772(73.5)

726(69.1)

547(52.1)

598(57.0)

773(73.6)

740(70.5)

Disagree

106(10.1)

101(9.6)

97(9.2)

136(13.0)

161(15.3)

179(17.0)

98(9.3)

128(12.2)

Agree

47(4.5)

42(4.0)

42(4.0)

50(4.8)

166(15.8)

117(11.1)

43(4.1)

49(4.7)

Stronglyagree

35(3.3)

34(3.2)

33(3.1)

34(3.2)

71(6.8)

49(4.7)

36(3.4)

34(3.2)

Don’tkn

ow23

(2.2)

22(2.1)

23(2.2)

22(2.1)

24(2.3)

24(2.3)

23(2.2)

22(2.1)

Missing

77(7.3)

78(7.4)

83(7.9)

82(7.8)

81(7.7)

83(7.9)

77(7.3)

77(7.3)

Total

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

Attitudestowardlegalization

Stronglydisagree

908(86.5)

917(87.3)

912(86.9)

875(83.3)

682(65.0)

738(70.3)

913(87.0)

895(85.2)

Disagree

54(5.1)

52(5.0)

49(4.7)

79(7.5)

126(12.0)

117(11.1)

51(4.9)

70(6.7)

Agree

11(1.0)

6(.6)

8(.8)

16(1.5)

126(12.0)

94(9.0)

9(.9)

8(.8)

Stronglyagree

5(.5)

5(.5)

6(.6)

5(.5)

39(3.7)

20(1.9)

6(.6)

5(.5)

Don’tkn

ow4(.4)

4(.4)

4(.4)

4(.4)

9(.9)

9(.9)

4(.4)

4(.4)

Missing

68(6.5)

66(6.3)

71(6.8)

71(6.8)

68(6.5)

72(6.9)

67(6.4)

68(6.5)

Total

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

1050

(100

%)

Am J Crim Just

Conversely, suburban officers were more likely than urban or rural officers to rankheroin as the most harmful drug. Perhaps reflecting its history and continued prev-alence in rural areas, methamphetamines were rated by rural officers as the mostharmful drug at a higher rate than urban or suburban officers. These perceptions ofharm track with patterns of self-reported drug use: crack cocaine use is moreprevalent in urban areas than in rural areas while methamphetamines historicallyhave been the drug of choice in rural areas (Gundy, 2006).

We also examined whether or not the race and departmental location of thereporting officer had any impact on beliefs of drug harm. While it is significant tonote that 836 of the 955 (87.5 %) valid cases in the first cross-tabulation were whiteofficers, our results yielded only minor racial fluctuations. Amongst whites, meth-amphetamines (41.7 %), heroin (24.9 %) and crack (12.1 %) were again deemed mostharmful. This generally held true, with some slight variations, for African Americanofficers (methamphetamines [32.5 %], crack and heroin [22 %] and cocaine [10 %]),Asian officers (methamphetamines [50 %], heroin [27.3 %] and crack, cocaine andhallucinogens [4.5 %]), Native American officers (methamphetamines [50 %], heroinand alcohol [20 %] and cocaine [10 %]), bi-racial officers (prescription drugs[30.8 %], methamphetamines [23.1 %] and crack and heroin [15.4 %], and officerswho identified themselves as some “other” racial classification (methamphetamines[44.1 %], heroin [23.5 %] and crack [8.8 %]).

Similarly, we found almost no regional variation in terms of belief of drug harm.Across six distinct regions of the United States, drug officers were nearly universal intheir assertion that methamphetamines, heroin and crack did the most personaldamage to users. In the Northeast, we noted a slight variation, with officer rankingheroin (46.1 %) as more destructive than methamphetamines (20.4 %) and crack(17.5 %). In the Northwest, there was again a slight deviation from the normalordering, with methamphetamines (64.7 %) being deemed the most harmful, surpris-ingly followed by alcohol (9.5 %), heroin (8.5 %) and crack (4.5 %). The strongperception of meth’s harmfulness by officers in the Northwest is consistent withmeth’s historical roots in the West and the disproportionate prevalence of drugtreatment admissions for methamphetamine addiction in the western region of theU.S. (Hunt, Kuck, & Truitt, 2006). In all other regions, the (1) methamphetamines,(2) heroin and (3) crack sequence held true, with the Southeastern officers reportingmethamphetamines (39.2 %), heroin (18 %) and crack (14 %), Midwestern officersreporting methamphetamines (46.5 %), heroin (27.6 %) and crack (11.8 %),Southwestern officers reporting methamphetamines (34.6 %), heroin (38.4 %) andcrack (8.6 %), and officers hailing from some “other” region reporting methamphet-amines (47.3 %), heroin (24.5 %) and heroin (11.9 %) as the top three categories interms of drug harm. Once again, alcohol and prescriptions drugs were widely viewedas more problematic than their illegal counterparts across regions of America.

Attitudes Toward Decriminalization and Legalization of Drugs

Lastly, we asked officers to express their opinions about the decriminalization andlegalization of drugs. For these survey items, officers were presented with a definitionof each term and then asked to rank each drug using a Likert scale. The decriminal-ization question was presented this way:

Am J Crim Just

Decriminalization is a policy that keeps drug possession illegal, but requires noor very minimal sanctions (such as a $25 ticket). Decriminalization is a changeto the enforcement policy rather than the legal status of the drug…I support adecriminalization policy for possession of:

For legalization, officers were presented with this definition:

Legalization involves changing the law to allow people to legally access drugs.Legalization plans include policies such as selling drugs in the same way thatalcohol is sold (regulated distribution) and allowing doctors to write prescriptions(such as medical marijuana). I support the legalization of:

Table 7 presents the results for both legalization and decriminalization. Notunexpectedly, the vast majority of officers either disagreed or strongly disagreed witha decriminalization policy for most drugs, including those they believe cause the mostsocietal and individual damage and others that did not rise to that level of concern (insome cases). Specifically, 82.7 % of the officers disagreed or strongly disagreed thatcocaine possession should be decriminalized. Similarly, 83.2 % of the officers did notsupport the decriminalization of crack, and this trend repeated itself for heroin(82.7 %), ecstasy (82.1 %), methamphetamines (82.9 %) and hallucinogens(82.7 %). Although officers ranked marijuana and steroids as some of the leastharmful drugs, lack of support for decriminalization was still apparent, with 67.4 % ofofficers disagreeing or strongly disagreeing that marijuana should be decriminalized and74 % disagreeing or strongly disagreeing that steroids should be decriminalized.

The results for legalization question demonstrated a similar, albeit even strongerpattern of disagreement (disagreed or strongly disagreed) among drug officers. For mostdrugs, over 90 % of the officers surveyed disagreed they should be legalized; specifi-cally, cocaine (91.6 %), crack (92.3 %), heroin (91.6 %), ecstasy (90.8 %), methamphet-amines (91.9 %) and hallucinogens (91.9 %) all met with very strong resistance.Marijuana (77 %) and steroids (81.4 %) received more legalization support, but werestill overwhelmingly rejected as drugs that should be permitted by the government.

Discussion

Our research goals for this project were twofold: First, we wanted to ascertain keydemographics associated with drug enforcement officers. Second, we wanted tocapture attitudes about drugs and drug enforcement policy. In terms of our first goal,our descriptive results suggest that American narcotics officers tend work in a patrolor investigative capacity (77 %), they are predominantly non-supervisory officers(61 %), and they are mostly male (93 %), white (85.3 %) and non-Latino (80.8 %).They are relatively young (approximately 70 % aged 20–39) and fairly well educated(nearly 80 % had some college or a bachelor’s degree). They serve nearly equally inurban, suburban and rural environments and in all regions of the US. Most (nearly78 %) are Municipal or County/Sheriff’s officers, with nearly 67 % serving indepartments with 200 or less officers. Last, if one thinks of a typical law enforcementcareer as 20–25 years in length, the drug enforcement officers in our sample tended tobe fairly junior, with most approximately 77 % ) having 15 years or less on the job.

Am J Crim Just

Attitudinal questions yielded very clear, if sometimes contradictory, results. Onaverage, nearly 54 % of our respondents felt that federal possession laws were notstrict enough and nearly 60 % thought that federal sale/manufacture laws were notstrict enough. Officers felt that crack, heroin and methamphetamines do the mostnational harm, while steroids do the least. To combat drugs, targeting both users anddealers was the clear preference for a national strategy, and nearly half of respondingofficers selected incarceration as the best societal response.

Beliefs about drug harm to the user were remarkably consistent. Officers believethat methamphetamines, heroin and crack are the most destructive drugs, with alcoholand prescription drugs generally deemed to be more harmful than the other illegaldrugs. Last, by and large, drug officers from all areas in all levels of law enforcementvehemently disagree with decriminalization and legalization strategies. A notableexception is that for marijuana, more than 1 in 5 officers agreed or strongly agreedwith decriminalization, and about 15 % agreed or strongly agreed with legalization.While for other drugs, we have nearly uniform agreement of the dangers, the bestenforcement practices and even the best punitive responses, we see some fracturingaround the best policies for controlling marijuana. Still, a majority of officers prefercriminalization, even for marijuana.

So it seems that drug officers hold very traditional views when it comes to drugs anddrug enforcement. There is widespread agreement that drugs, particularly addictiveones, do great harm to our nation and those individuals who use them. Although officersbelieve that drugs such as marijuana and steroids are more benign, they are nonethelessadamant that the laws governing their use, manufacture and sale are not strict enoughand need to bolstered (the same holds true for other drugs as well), and the majority thinkthat either legalization or decriminalization is a bad idea. It is fair to say that theseofficers are “true believers,” in that they view drugs as a scourge on our nation that mustbe met with stringent laws, aggressive enforcement and harsh punishment.

Although we believe the findings in this study are significant in terms of under-standing how police view the presence and effects of drugs on both the individual andsociety as a whole, the study itself is limited in scope. First, there is the obvious issueof a lack of an independent random sample, thus relegating our analysis to descriptivestatistics. Next, the officers who did participate are self identified as drug interdictionofficers. While we were able to capture their relative experience in policing, theircomprehensive, direct experience with intercepting drugs, drug users and drug deal-ers is unknown. That is to say even veteran participants may have been new to thisarena of enforcement. Last, as discussed previously, the generalizability of thefindings are subject to debate based on our methodology.

Conclusions

The clearest conclusion to come from this inquiry is that law enforcement officershave strong and similar views about drug enforcement. They consistently reported theview that drug users and sellers/manufacturers are best handled in the criminal justicearena. Our War on Drugs is nearly uniformly supported the uniformed and under-cover enforcers in our sample. Such a finding is reassuring to those who fear that the$44 billion annual expense of the Drug War may be undermined by those in trenches.

Am J Crim Just

Officer beliefs strongly suggest otherwise. Indeed, the opinions of our front lineindicate that they truly believe in criminal sanctions for drug offenders.

Another important conclusion is that based on officer beliefs, we see little differ-ence between those in urban, suburban and even rural environments, suggesting thateven across enforcement environments and drug experiences, there is a strong andpervasive belief that criminal sanctions are necessary for drug offenders.Decriminalization, legalization and treatment options other than through drug courtwere unpopular across the spectrum of respondents.

Our findings suggest that any questions related to the ideological commitment ofthe thin blue line to accept the challenge of responding to our nation’s drug users,sellers and manufacturers can be set aside. From the lowest to the highest of ranks,from the Pacific to the Atlantic and without regard to other demographic differences,officers’ beliefs support our current approach to drug control. The notableexception lies in a substantial minority of officers who support decriminaliza-tion or even legalization of marijuana, but even for this drug, believed to be leastharmful, a two thirds majority still puts its confidence in maintaining our currentprohibition.

These findings are important for two reasons. First, as public opinion oscillatesaway from criminalization, it is important to understand the thinking of law enforce-ment to ensure that the thinking of our front lines is still consistent with our nationalpriorities. Although social norms around criminalizing drug use are somewhat divid-ed, particularly around the criminalization of marijuana, attitudes among lawenforcers are far less divided. A recent Gallup poll suggests that Americans areincreasingly in favor of marijuana legalization: “A record-high 50 % of Americansnow say the use of marijuana should be made legal, up from 46 % last year. Forty-sixpercent say marijuana use should remain illegal (Newport, 2011, http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/record-high-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx).Importantly, our study suggests that this shift in public sentiment is much smalleramong law enforcers than it is among the general public.

The natural extension of this finding comprises the other reason these findings areimportant. Now that baseline demographics and attitudes have been established, itwill be interesting to see if actual enforcement patterns match the attitudes and valueswe have uncovered. Johnson (2010) asserts that “it is reasonable to assume that[officers’] decisions are based primarily on attitudes and preferences of individualofficers” (293). For example, Gover, Paul, and Dodge (2011) suggests that policeofficers’ “general attitudes and beliefs about domestic violence are likely to influencehow they respond to these incidents” (620).

However other research finds a less clear relationship between officers’ attitudesand their behavior (Engel & Worden, 2003; Paoline, Myers, & Worden, 2000;Worden, 1989). As Johnson (2010) puts it, “there is evidence to suggest that anindividual’s attitudes are often poor predictors of that individual’s behavior if theindividual’s attitudes are not in harmony with the norms and structure of the individual’senvironment” (296). Thus, there is a need for further empirical work to examine not onlyofficer attitudes, but also the organizational norms within a department and, of course,the actual behavior of individual officers. Future work should examine departmentaldrug initiatives in various jurisdictions to see if the strong pro-criminalization attitudeswe uncovered translate to similarly enthusiastic enforcement.

Am J Crim Just

If actual enforcement patterns match the attitudes uncovered in this exploration,then new, normative questions arise. Scholars have repeatedly found that gainingcompliance with the law is far easier when laws represent the social norms of citizenswho must comply (Levi, Sacks, & Tyler, 2009; Tyler, 2006; Etzioni, 2000; Samuels,2006). Meares and Kahan (1998) argue that “the current approach to drug-lawenforcement is a prime example of a policy crippled by a failure to appreciate theimplications of norms” (816). Does this growing rift between general public opinionand police attitudes about drug prohibition impact enforcement? Much remains to bestudied around the issue of drug policy, public opinion and police attitudes. This workmakes a small step toward filling this gap in knowledge.

References

Barrett, K. J., Haberfeld, M., & Walker, M. C. (2009). A comparative study of the attitudes of Urban,Suburban and Rural Police Officers in New Jersey regarding the use of force. Crime Law and SocialChange, 52(2), 159.

Beletsky, L., Macalina, G. E., & Burris, S. (2005). Attitudes of police officers towards syringe access,occupational needle-sticks, and drug use: a qualitative study of one city police department in the UnitedStates. The International Journal on Drug Policy, 16, 267.

Beyer, L., Crofts, N., & Reid, G. (2002). Drug offending and criminal justice responses: practitioners’perspectives. The International Journal on Drug Policy, 13, 203.

Brooks, L. W., Piquero, A., & Cronin, J. (1993). Police officer attitudes concerning their communities andtheir roles: a comparison of two suburban police departments. American Journal of Police, 12(3), 115.

Brown, J. (1998). Gender differences in police officers attitudes towards rape: results of an exploratorystudy. Crime and Law, 4, 265–279.

Campbell, R., & Johnson, C. R. (1997). Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(2), 255.Carlan, P. (2009). A contemporary snapshot of policewoman attitudes. Women and Criminal Justice, 9(1),

60.Engel, R. S., & Worden, R. (2003). Police officers’ attitudes, behavior, and supervisory influences: an

analysis of problem solving. Criminology, 41(1), 131–166.Etzioni, A. (2000). Social norms: internalization, persuasion, and history. Law and Society Review, 34(1),

157.Gaines, L., & Kappeler, V. (2005). Policing in America. Fifth Edition. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing.Gover, A., Paul, D. P., & Dodge, M. (2011). Law enforcement officers’ attitudes about domestic violence.

Violence Against Women, 17(5), 619–636.Gray, J. (2000). Why our drug policies have failed and what we can do about it: A judicial indictment of the

war on drugs. Temple University Press.Gundy, K. (2006). Substance abuse in rural and small town America. Carsey Institute, University of New

Hampshire: Durham, NH. http://www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu/publications/Report_SubstanceAbuse.pdf.Hunt, D., Kuck, S., & Truitt, L. (2006). Methamphetamine use: Lessons learned. ABT Associates: Cam-

bridge, MA. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/209730.pdf.Inciardi, J. (2008) The War on drugs IV, 4th Edition. Allyn and Bacon.Johnson, R. R. (2010). Officer attitudes and management influences on police work productivity. American

Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 293–306.Levi, M., Sacks, A., & Tyler, T. (2009). Conceptualizing legitimacy, measuring legitimating beliefs.

American Behavioral Scientist, 53, 354–375.Marinos, V., & Innocente, N. (2008). Factors influencing police attitudes towards extrajudicial measures

under the youth criminal justice act. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 50(4), 469.Meares, T. L., & Kahan, D. M. (1998). Law and (norms of) order in the Inner City. Law and Society Review,

32(4), 805.Miron, J. (2008). The budgetary implications of drug prohibition. Economics of Criminal Law, 17, 553–

570.

Am J Crim Just

Miron, J., & Waldock, K. (2010). The budgetary impact of ending drug prohibition. The Cato Institute:Washington DC. http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/DrugProhibitionWP.pdf.

Moore, R. H., & Palmiotto, M. J. (1997). Drug policies: a study of the opinions of local law enforcementpatrol officers about various policy alternatives. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 12(1), 32.

Newport, F. (October 17, 2011.) http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/record-high-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx.

Oberweis, T., & Musheno M. (2001). Knowing rights: State actors’ stories of power, identity and morality.Ashgate Press.

Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) (2012). Budget summary.Page, A. D. (2007). Behind the blue line: investigating police officers’ attitudes toward rape. Journal of

Police and Criminal Psychology, 22(1), 22.Page, A. D. (2008). Gateway to reform? Policy implications of police officers’ attitudes toward rape.

American Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(1), 44.Paoline, E. A., Myers, S. M., & Worden, R. E. (2000). Police culture, individualism, and community

policing: evidence from two police departments. Justice Quarterly, 17(4), 575–605.Petrocelli, M., & Smith, M. J. (2000). The implementation of a use of force study: lessons learned for

practioners and researchers. Police Forum, 10(3), 1.Poteveva, M., & Sun, I. Y. (2009). Gender differences in police officers’ attitudes: assessing current

empirical evidence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(5), 512.Samuels, S. (2006). Law, politics and society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Sun, I. Y., & Chu, D. C. (2008). A cross-national analysis of female police officers’ attitudes in the United

States and Taiwan. International Criminal Justice Review, 18(1), 5.Tyler, T. (1990). Why people obey the law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Tyler, T. R., (2006). Why People Obey the Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Wells, W., & Schafer, J. A. (2007). Police skepticism of citizen oversight: officers’ attitudes toward specific

functions, processes, and outcomes. Journal of Crime and Justice, 30(2), 1.Worden, R. (1989). Situational and attitudinal explanations of police behavior: a theoretical reappraisal and

empirical assessment. Law and Society Review, 24(4).

Matthew Petrocelli is an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice Studies at Southern Illinois UniversityEdwardsville. His academic credentials include a BS from the United States Military Academy (WestPoint), an MCJ from the Graduate School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado (Denver) and aPhD from the School of Justice Studies at Arizona State University. A former Army officer and AirborneRanger, his research interests and publications are varied, mainly focusing on American law enforcement.

Trish Oberweis is an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice Studies at Southern Illinois UniversityEdwardsville. She holds an MS and PhD from the School of Justice Studies at Arizona State University.She has published research articles in a variety of venues and her research interests entail the law andsociety, drug policy and identity, knowledge and power.

Michael R. Smith is professor of Criminal Justice and Vice Provost at the University of Texas at El Paso.Prior to assuming his current position, he served as dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciencesat Georgia Southern University and chair of the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at theUniversity of South Carolina. Dr. Smith is a former police officer and holds a J.D. from the University ofSouth Carolina School of Law and a Ph.D. in Justice Studies from Arizona State University. He is anationally-recognized expert on racial profiling and has written extensively on this and other critical issuesat the intersection of law, public policy, and policing.

Joseph Petrocelli is a professional educator in Northern New Jersey. In 2012, he retired after 25 years aslaw enforcement officer. He has earned a Masters Degree from Seton Hall University in EducationAdministration and a Masters Degree from the Rutgers School of Criminal Justice in Criminal Justice.

Am J Crim Just