Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Debra J. Saunders :: Townhall.com Columnist
Heavy Time for Drug Lightweights
by Debra J. Saunders
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
What was the biggest suprise of Election Day?



When Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, it wrongly included language that meted out a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for dealing 5 grams of crack cocaine, yet the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence for dealing 100 times that amount, or 500 grams, of powder cocaine. Thus the bill codified a racially unjust divide. The U.S. Sentencing Commission found that in 2000 some 84.7 percent of federal crack offenders were black, while only 5.6 percent were white.

Everyone in Washington knows that the law is unfair -- obscenely unfair. The U.S. Sentencing Commission has made four recommendations to curb the sentencing inequity. Alas, for the past two decades, Democrats and Republicans have cravenly set out to out-posture each other in toughness in the war on drugs. So Washington either voted against or ignored the Sentencing Commission's recommendations.

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., may be about to change the status quo. For the past couple of years, Washington's idea of reform has been to fiddle with the concept of reducing the 100-to-one crack-powder sentencing disparity to 20-to-one.

Last month, Biden made the brave leap of proposing a bill to eliminate the sentencing disparity completely -- instead of changing the law so it is unfair, but less so. As Biden wrote in a statement announcing his Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007, the law needs to be changed because "powder cocaine offenders who traffic 500 grams of powder (2,500-5,000 doses) receive the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence as crack cocaine offenders who posses just 5 grams of crack (10-50 doses)."

Biden's bill would raise the amount of crack cocaine so that 500 grams of either crack or powder cocaine would trigger the same mandatory minimum sentence.

Biden also included the Sentencing Commission recommendation to eliminate the mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of 5 grams or more of crack, as crack is the only drug to mandate a prison sentence for possession alone. While supporters might argue that the possession penalty is tough on drugs, the Sentencing Commission pointed out how weak the crack possession penalty actually is: "an offender who simply possesses 5 grams of crack cocaine receives the same 5-year mandatory minimum penalty as a trafficker of other drugs."

The ACLU is supportive. A statement lauded Biden's bill as a "long-awaited fix to discriminatory federal drug sentencing."

But Eric Sterling of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation is less enthusiastic. "Most of my friends are a little embarrassed that I'm not jumping up and down with them saying, 'This is what we've been working for.'" Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Debra Saunders' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Pirate --- on Cops Responses
quoth Pirate: "No, what you do is listen to the polite (black) grandmothers who keep coming in to beg you to deal with said crack house in THEIR 'hood, and if you don't, you run the risk of them calling you racist for not providing police protection."

I have to wonder about this, having known personally of a number of "crack houses" that remained in business long enough to almost have their own entry in the yellow pages. Everybody and their grandmother knew where they were and what was going on. I can't imagine the cops were somehow the only people not clued in.

"Cops go where they are asked to. From where they set up speed traps to where they patrol, citizen complaints and citizen requests are significant."

Speed traps -- yes -- that brings money IN to the city. 99% of the people given tickets do not contest it and just pay the fine. It's been said that if everybody given a speeding ticker were to insist on all their legal rights, or even if just HALF of them did, the whole system would come crashing to a halt.

Crack houses -- not so much -- that COSTS money.



"Furthermore, crack is supposed to be more addictive than "regular" cocaine and hence more dangerous and thus worthy of a greater sanction."

Underline "supposed to be".



However, it's a little unreasonable for us to expect rationality in something which is as inherently irrational as the War on Some Drugs. So a little disparity in the penalties and the enforcement shouldn't be surprising.

is crack sanction legit?
Flagwaver writes: If you're the cops you go to where you see crime, not where crime might be--do you stake out the home of Dr. Jones hoping you might get a bust, or do go after he known crack house in the 'hood?
=========

No, what you do is listen to the polite (black) grandmothers who keep coming in to beg you to deal with said crack house in THEIR 'hood, and if you don't, you run the risk of them calling you racist for not providing police protection.

Cops go where they are asked to. From where they set up speed traps to where they patrol, citizen complaints and citizen requests are significant. Government is inherently political, old ladies will be voting in the next election and smart politicians will listen to them.

One more thing - the reason why the crack law is so stringent is that BLACK ACTIVISTS WHO WANTED THEIR COMMUNITIES SAFE LOBBIED FOR HARSH SANCTIONS.

I know people who live in low income neighborhoods - they are anti drug the way that folks who live in the woods are anti forest fire. So the system actually works, the peers of the crack users are far more anti drug than the peers of the powder coke and hence the system worked.

Furthermore, crack is supposed to be more addictive than "regular" cocaine and hence more dangerous and thus worthy of a greater sanction.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.