Remember that a lot of these are probably “add-on” charges. I.E, they weren’t arrested just for posessing drugs— they were arrested for robbery, or whatever, and also had drugs on them when they were busted.
On final note (unless I think of something else to post): the federal prison system does not have a typical population. It has a much higher proportion of people serving for drug related crimes than the average state system (where most prisoners are). In a state prison the average figure for prisoners convicted of drug crimes is 20 to 25%. This because crimes like murder, rape, assault, and major thefts are generally prosecuted under state laws not federal ones - so relatively few of that type of criminal ends up in a federal prison.
Littering and creating a nuisance.
Come on, if “creating a nuisance” was a real crime punishable by a prison sentence, half of Americans would be in prison already. 
Premeditated mopery.
Out of curiosity, is there any consensus regarding the proportion of robberies, murders etc that are indirect drug crimes, i.e. committed in order to obtain drugs or drug money?
Which one of those categories is for tax related stuff?
The category that includes fraud would probably include tax fraud. I’m not sure where other tax related crimes would be grouped.
Don’t federal crimes usually have to be committed in multiple states, or involve contraband smuggled into the country, for Federal jurisdiction to take effect? If so it makes some sense that so many drug-related convicts end up in the Federal system, if we assume that most of them are dealers or smugglers. This implies a close connection to the transporting of drugs into the country, which makes it a Federal crime, and also, usually, a distribution network over many states, which also makes it a Federal crime.
I dont’ agree with most of the antidrug laws or the penalties they incur, but it does make some sense that there are so many drug offenders in the Federal prisons.
That said, where are the tax violators? Are they included in one of the other categories?
I can’t say I ever saw a serrated grapefruit either. Maybe that’s why I need a spoon! :smack:
That’s part of it, but federal jurisdiction reaches a little more broadly than that. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress can regulate the channels of interstate commerce, instrumentalities of interstate commerce and persons and things traveling in interstate commerce, or activities that substantially affect interstate commerce (there are other clauses in the Constituition that allow the feds to create crimes, but the Commerce Clause is a biggie).
That last one, activities that substantially affect interstate commerce, allows the federal government to regulate and criminalize even conduct that occurs wholly within a single state (“intrastate activity”) if it can demontrate a rational basis for concluding that there’s a substantial affect on interstate commerce. Some crimes haven’t cut the mustard (SCOTUS threw out the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 in U.S. v. Lopez and the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 in U.S. v. Morrison), but regulating drug possession and distribution on a large scale qualifies. A fairly recent case put it like this:
“Unlike those at issue in Lopez and Morrison, the activities regulated by the CSA [Controlled Substances Act] are quintessentially economic. “Economics” refers to “the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 720 (1966). The CSA is a statute that regulates the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities for which there is an established, and lucrative, interstate market. Prohibiting the intrastate possession or manufacture of an article of commerce is a rational (and commonly utilized) means of regulating commerce in that product. Such prohibitions include specific decisions requiring that a drug be withdrawn from the market as a result of the failure to comply with regulatory requirements as well as decisions excluding Schedule I drugs entirely from the market. Because the CSA is a statute that directly regulates economic, commercial activity, our opinion in Morrison casts no doubt on its constitutionality.”
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).
A lot of it is plea bargained down from multiple accounts.
A lot of badgers avoid serrated spoons because they chip their incisors.
I’m just sayin’.
Just because I’m not familiar with some obscure 1960’s song doesn’t make my comment less valid. 
Obscure? OBSCURE???
Geez, if I’m 29 getting all het up over this, I can’t imagine how the Baby Boomers must feel. I suggest you take cover now!
Honey, you don’t know what you’re missing. Get the CD and/or DVD of the movie and enjoy a blast from the past.