I think there is an important difference between someone who is violent against other people versus someone who uses drugs (and might be violent in a sense to him/herself but no one else). So where "reducing sanctions for drug offenders" might be a novel thing to do, "reducing punishment for violent or property offenders" might not be. Apart from which one is "less complicated" or more efficient to the goal of scaling back incarceration.
The Big 4 violent crimes are murder/manslaughter, rape, robbery and ag. assault. Of those 4, it's easy to get charged with the last two. For instance: I was "gently mugged" at night a few years back on my block; 3 teenagers jumped me and demanded my phone, which I gave them, and my bag, which I refused to give them, at which point they ran. They were charged with robbery (I didn't bother showing up to their trial, which I understands means they were acquitted, which seems like a decent outcome).
How was this ever so ambiguous that it took this long for somebody to figure out?
> In reality, a majority of prison growth has come from locking up violent offenders
And also:
> a large majority of those admitted to prison never serve time for a drug charge