Independent research and analysis of drug laws provides advocates, policymakers and community leaders with information and evidence needed for effective policies. The Drug Enforcement and Policy Center provides objective analysis that contextualizes today’s problems and challenges with the history of drug enforcement and drug policy reform in the United States.
More Data and Policy Analyses
This collection of essays provides extended commentary from multiple law professors on David Pozen’s 2024 book, The Constitution of the War on Drugs. Pozen’s book provides a rich and astute perspective on a wide array of dynamic legal, political, and social stories at the intersection of constitutional jurisprudence and drug policy. Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin, recognizing the book engaged many historical and cutting-edge issues in the fields of constitutional law, criminal law and health law, invited professors in these fields to contribute to an online symposium on The Constitution of the War on Drugs hosted on his blog, Balkinization. This publication is a collection of these commentaries, with an introduction by Douglas A. Berman, Newton D. Baker-Baker & Hostetler Chair in Law and executive director of the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.
As the number of states with legalized medical or adult-use marijuana continues to expand, there is a pressing need for legal and regulatory frameworks to develop in a balanced and fair manner, building on experiences that help reveal best practices. This page includes policy resources from DEPC's own Distinguished Cannabis Policy Practitioners in Residence, as well as other experts in cannabis regulation, who have sought to provide informed guidance regarding cannabis regulatory regimes. The following papers, event recordings, and interviews are aimed at providing practical guidance for addressing some of the most important challenges facing the cannabis industry and those seeking to soundly regulate them—on topics including social equity, interstate commerce, banking access, monopoly prevention, and more.
The “tough on crime” era of the 1980s and 1990s ushered in a growing reliance on prisons, the ratcheting up of sentence lengths, and a broader expansion of the criminal justice system. Life sentences, historically rarely imposed, became increasingly commonplace in the 1980s through the 2000s, contributing to the ballooning imprisoned population. While there are growing concerns about the increased use of life sentences in the United States, there has been limited empirical study of these sentences. This report seeks to fill this gap with a particular focus on the federal sentencing system and the imposition of life sentences for drug offenses. Specifically, the current report documents federal life sentences imposed for drug trafficking over the last three decades, taking a closer look at the defendant and case-specific characteristics, and providing a descriptive account of the factors that are associated with those sentenced to life in prison in federal courts.
The topic of drug decriminalization has gained considerable attention in the United States after Oregon voted in November 2020 to decriminalize all drugs in that state. While we consider the possible impacts of broader drug decriminalization efforts, it is useful to look back at the five decades of marijuana decriminalization for lessons on effects and implementation. DEPC collected all state and local statutes on marijuana decriminalization and created an interactive map to illustrate the patchwork nature of the U.S. approach. The corresponding dataset is available for download.
DEPC has gathered a variety of resources to aid in understanding the complex evolution of criminal justice and drug sentencing reforms in Ohio. The page includes a visualization of Ohio incarceration rates, a timeline of Ohio reforms since 2010, commentaries and writings, event recordings, research, and more.
Proposals for Legislative Change
In this paper, it is argued that adding firearm rights restoration education to reentry planning could have an impact on recidivism (or future sentence length) for a meaningful number of individuals. In partial support of this argument, having weapons while under disability is also one of the most common convictions that lead to an Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction commitment. While some of those commitments may have involved additional convictions, it is reasonable to assume that a non-trivial number of individuals recidivate solely due to violations of the having weapons while under disability statute. Further, restoring firearm rights would also meaningfully reduce incarceration periods for those who recidivate because of other crimes (given that having weapons while under disability would not be included in the sentence along with the other crimes). The paper begins by providing an overview of Ohio’s having weapons while under disability statute, and a related federal law. Next, Ohio firearm rights restoration mechanisms are discussed. The paper concludes with recommendations for those that choose to pursue relief via Ohio Revised Code Section 2923.14. Finally, it is important to note that this paper takes no policy position on firearm rights in general.
Ohio Senate Bill 288 (134th General Assembly) is set to enact significant changes to Ohio’s rights restoration laws. One of those significant changes is the creation of an expungement process for those who possess criminal convictions. While expungement is logically a superior mechanism to record sealing, Senate Bill 288 mandates significant waiting times for those with felonies seeking expungement. Further, it is possible that prosecutors, judges, or victims will favor record sealing over expungement in particular cases. Therefore, record sealing may still be the most viable option for many individuals with criminal history. However, Senate Bill 288 failed to address important issues with Ohio’s record sealing provisions. An overview of these issues, and recommendations to address them, are presented in this paper.
Portions of Ohio’s Certificate of Qualification for Employment (CQE) statute (Revised Code Section 2953.25) are inconsistent with established policies and practices, cause unnecessary delays, and unnecessarily increase the financial costs associated with the processing of this mechanism. Proposed amendments, and reasons for proposed amendments, are presented in this paper.
Firearm injuries and deaths are a significant public health concern. One method to reduce firearm injuries and deaths is to enact laws that prohibit certain individuals from possessing or using firearms. One such law is Ohio Revised Code Section 2923.13 (having weapons while under disability), which prohibits various individuals from knowingly acquiring, having, carrying, or using any firearm or dangerous ordnance. Notably absent from the statute is a clear process for statutorily disabled individuals who come into knowing possession of a firearm or dangerous ordnance through no fault of their own and wish to relinquish possession responsibly and legally. This report proposes an amendment to Ohio Revised Code Section 2923.13 that seeks to effectuate an affirmative defense. Failing to add an affirmative defense to Ohio’s having weapons while under disability statute could promote unsafe disposal or disbursement of firearms and dangerous ordnances as statutorily disabled individuals who come into possession of such items through no fault of their own may fear contacting law enforcement under the current statute.
In Ohio Senate Bill 158 (2021-2022), an eviction expungement was proposed. While this proposed legislation is certainly a commendable effort to address an important issue, the current formulation of the bill contains shortcomings that may hinder the overall objective of reducing housing barriers for those with evictions. The first section of this paper discusses issues with the current eviction expungement bill and proposes alternative approaches. The second section of this paper presents statutory language seeking to effectuate one of the alternative approaches.