Congress Cosiders Lesser Sentences For Crack Cocaine

[David]

I have said many times the War On Drugs is a very racist institution. The penalties for crack cocaine use are far stiffer than they are for some guy snorting coke in the suburbs in a plush home. This is coming from a Republican Senator, Jeff Sessions. Good policy. Maybe it will move the ball forward on decriminalizing. AP

Lawmakers consider lessening crack penalties


"I believe that as a matter of law enforcement and good public policy that crack cocaine sentences are too heavy and can't be justified. People don't want us to be soft on crime, but I think we ought to make the law more rational."

— Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

HARSH CRACK SENTENCES

Average length of imprisonment (in years) for those convicted of federal drug offenses -- primarily drug trafficking -- in fiscal year 2006, by drug type:

• Crack cocaine: 10.1
• Methamphetamine: 8.4
• Powder cocaine: 7.1
• Heroin: 5.9
• Other: 5.2
• Marijuana: 3.5

Source: U.S. Sentencing Commission
By Donna Leinwand, USA TODAY
Momentum is building in Congress to ease crack cocaine sentencing guidelines, which the American Civil Liberties Union and other critics say have filled prisons with low-level drug dealers and addicts whose punishments were much worse than their crimes.

Federal prison sentences for possessing or selling crack have far exceeded those for powder cocaine for two decades. House Crime Subcommittee chairman Robert Scott, D-Va., a longtime critic of such sentencing policies, plans to hold hearings on crack sentences this year. In the Senate, Republican Jeff Sessions of Alabama is drawing bipartisan support for his proposal to ease crack sentences.

"I believe that as a matter of law enforcement and good public policy that crack cocaine sentences are too heavy and can't be justified," Sessions says. "People don't want us to be soft on crime, but I think we ought to make the law more rational."

The mandatory federal sentencing guidelines passed by Congress in 1986 require a judge to impose the same sentence for possession of 5 grams of crack as for 500 grams of powder cocaine: five years in prison.

Congress passed the sentencing laws just after the fatal crack overdose of University of Maryland basketball star Len Bias on June 19, 1986, and as crack was emerging in urban areas, says Alfred Blumstein, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh who researches crime. Crack cocaine was associated with violent, open-air drug markets, he says.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Congress | American Civil Liberties Union | Len Bias

"There was a lot of public concern about violence," Blumstein says.

Jesselyn McCurdy with the ACLU says much of the violence associated with crack stemmed from territorial disputes between dealers, not from those using the drug. She says the stricter sentences for crack have filled prisons with low-level, primarily African-American addicts rather than the major drug traffickers Congress sought to punish. An ACLU study in October 2006 found that 80% of crack defendants were black.

"People have seen how it plays out in racial disparities," McCurdy says. "The stumbling block on both sides of the aisle has been this issue around appearing to be soft on crime. But this is about equalizing an injustice."

Sessions' bill would lessen the sentencing disparity by increasing punishments for powder cocaine and decreasing them for crack. Crimes involving crack would still draw stiffer sentences, but the difference would not be as dramatic. The bill has drawn support from Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar, a former state attorney general from Colorado, Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor, a former state attorney general from Arkansas, and Republican Sen. John Cornyn, a former Texas Supreme Court justice and attorney general.

In the House of Representatives, two bills calling for Congress to equalize the sentences for powder cocaine and crack were filed in January.

"We're going to address all the mandatory minimums," said Scott, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. "The crack cocaine is probably the most egregious because of its draconian number of years for relatively small amounts."

Opposition to weaker sentences has come from police, prosecutors and law enforcement agencies such as the Justice Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration.

"We believe the current federal sentencing policy and guidelines for crack cocaine offenses are reasonable," Justice spokesman Dean Boyd says.

Higher penalties for crack offenses reflect its greater harm, he says, adding that crack traffickers are more likely to use weapons and have more significant criminal histories than powder cocaine dealers.

"Congress thought by having very harsh sentences, it would deter the spread of crack into the inner cities and around the country," Sessions says. "The truth is, it didn't stop it. It spread very rapidly. Now we need to ask ourselves, what is the right sentence for this bad drug. I think it's time to adjust. I think it's past time to do this."

Scientists say there is no pharmaceutical justification for having different sentencing rules for crack and powder cocaine.

The powder is cocaine hydrochloride salt, which can be snorted into the nose or dissolved in water and injected. Crack is cocaine mixed with water and ammonia or baking soda then heated to remove the hydrochloride. The resulting pure cocaine rock can be smoked.

"Once the cocaine is in your bloodstream, there's absolutely no difference between powder cocaine and crack cocaine," says Bruce Goldberger, director of toxicology at the University of Florida College of Medicine.

The quicker the drug enters the bloodstream, the more intense its effects, he said. Two of the quickest routes are smoking, which is done with crack, and injecting, which is done by dissolving the powder and shooting it into the bloodstream.

[dcannady]

Congress thought

That's where the trouble started! That many lunkheads, all in one place "thinking", can only lead to trouble.

by having very harsh sentences, it would deter the spread of crack into the inner cities and around the country," Sessions says. "The truth is, it didn't stop it. It spread very rapidly.

So let's do just a little less of the very same thing and see if that helps solve the problem.

Super geniuses.

[Fox]

There should be different penalties for crack cocaine. I have seen to many crackheads to believe otherwise. Believe me, crack cocaine is not racist and it is far more dangerous.

This is where the dopeheads begin to lose me. I am almost brought into their line of thinking when it comes to marijuana. But crack is a dangerously addictive drug that would have severe consequences on this country if legalized.

Bravo to the War on Drugs. Keep up the good work and throw the crack dealers in prison for a very long time.

[dcannady]

This whole thing with crack and meth could be ended within a month by simply legalizing the sale, to adults, of dexedrine, marijuana and ecstacy.

The reason crack became so popular, in the first place, was that it was a cheap way to maximize the effect of cocaine because cocaine is expensive. The lure of cocaine and meth is stimulation. Given the opportunity to use the far less destructive and addictive drugs like dexedrine and ecstacy, the market would dry up for the more dangerous drugs like meth and crack.

Meth and crack are very potent drugs of inconsistent quality. Very small quantities produce profound effects, but the price is very high for those small quantities.

On the other hand, synthesized substances, like dexedrine and ecstacy, have very predictable and consistent effects and come in carefully metered and verifiable dosages. They simply make you stay awake.

The military dispenses dexedrine to soldiers.

It has been a stupid progression from the days when amphetamines were the most desirable stimulants, until now when the crude bathtub substitutes have become such horrible scourges.

The use of the very worst stimulants is simply the market backhanding us for prohibiting the safer and cheaper stimulants

[Vistor233]

Originally Posted by dcannady

This whole thing with crack and meth could be ended within a month by simply legalizing the sale, to adults, of Dexedrine, marijuana and ecstasy.

The reason crack became so popular, in the first place, was that it was a cheap way to maximize the effect of cocaine because cocaine is expensive.

I think part of why meth became popular is that people were able to manufacture it in home labs. To me the idea that people are making this stuff in a house full of kids is really repugnant - but it's not uncommon. It's a money maker. How would legalizing meth change this aspect?

[dcannady]

It's a money maker. How would legalizing meth change this aspect?

First of all, I didn't suggest legalizing meth. Dexedrine is far different.

But, access to a legal stimulant drug would make the market for illegal methamphetamine dry up, with all of the penalties in place for the manufacture and sale. In fact, though, the greatest number of people who make it, use it. The big-time manufacturers are the Mexicans.

Can it be that you don't really understand market principles? There were many thousands of moonshiners during alcohol prohibition, but they went away after the repeal of it because (1) people would rather by their recreational substances from a legal source and (2) the black market only exists for prohibited products.

Drugs made in the bathrooms of trailers could be anything from too potent to poison, while regulated substances would be standardized. Even the most depraved druggie would not buy mystery in the dark alley when he could purchase certainty in the bright daylight from a licensed vendor.

[Vistor233]

Originally Posted by dcannady

....regulated substances would be standardized. Even the most depraved druggie would not buy mystery in the dark alley when he could purchase certainty in the bright daylight from a licensed vendor.

You realize you're talking new regulatory initiatives here, don't you?

[dcannady]

You realize you're talking new regulatory initiatives here, don't you?

Prohibition is regulation. Anything less stringent would be a step toward de-regulation. Certainly, some regulations are less odious than others.

[Vistor233]

Originally Posted by dcannady

Prohibition is regulation. Anything less stringent would be a step toward de-regulation. Certainly, some regulations are less odious than others.

You previously stated that "Drugs made in the bathrooms of trailers could be anything from too potent to poison, while regulated substances would be standardized." I would think that the standardization effort itself, the ongoing enforcement of whatever standard is formulated, combined with a licensure aspect for vendors would be much more complicated than simple prohibition. It would mean the creation of a whole new bureaucracy whereas to enforce a prohibition really all you need is an existing police force.

[dcannady]

I would think that enforcement of a standard combined with a licensure aspect for vendors would be much more complex and involved than simple prohibition.

I hope you are being facetious. There could hardly be a bureaucratic effort any larger than the War on Drugs. There's the DEA, who is 100% devoted to that purpose. Then, there is the FBI, the military, state and local law enforcement agencies involved. These all receive Federal, State and local money and get to keep whatever cash and prizes they score.

If prohibition is so "simple", how come the results have been so dismal?

It would mean the creation of a whole new bureaucracy whereas to enforce a prohibition all you need is a police force.

No, it wouldn't. It could be dealt with exactly the same as alcohol by the same agencies that deal with alcohol.

[Vistor233]

Originally Posted by dcannady

There could hardly be a bureaucratic effort any larger than the War on Drugs.

Unless all drugs are legalized, that war on drugs would continue; it would just be less cost effective because the newly legalized substances are no longer within the jurisdiction of law enforcement.

If prohibition is so "simple", how come the results have been so dismal?

I wasn't talking about the difficulty in implementation. I was talking about regulatory complexity.

No, it wouldn't. It could be dealt with exactly the same as alcohol by the same agencies that deal with alcohol.

Would vendors for the newly legalized substances only have a sales tax license? Is that the kind of "licensing" you're talking about?

There are other issues. Legalization of illegal substances would likely contribute to in an increase in the number of abusers simply as a result of by making the substances more readily available. This in turn would result in increased crime and thus would add to existing burdens for the criminal justice system.

[dcannady]

Unless all drugs are legalized, that war on drugs would continue; it would just be less cost effective because the newly legalized substances are no longer within the jurisdiction of law enforcement.

Cost effective? What's cost effective about prohibition? Last year, 12.6 BILLION dollars was spent to combat drugs and what did we get for the money? Well, we got a whole bunch of well paid bureaucrats and a lot of people arrested and a lot of people incracerated, but drug use continues unabated. That doesn't even include the State and local expenditures.

But, oh wait! If marijuana was legal, all of the eradication and suppression efforts would cease in that area and the revenue generated by taxes on the sale of it would be enormous. There would be fewer people arrested and incarcerated and less expenditure by law enforcement agencies required. That's just one drug.

I wasn't talking about the difficulty in implementation. I was talking about regulatory complexity.

So, you're just saying it would be too much trouble to do the right thing.

Would vendors for the newly legalized substances only have a sales tax license? Is that the kind of "licensing" you're talking about?

It should be treated exactly the same as alcohol. I've already said that. It would help if you actually read what I go to the trouble to type here.

Legalization of illegal substances would likely contribute to in an increase in the number of abusers simply as a result of by making the substances more readily available.

Right now, marijuana is as readily available as it could ever be. In the first place, illegal drug dealers actually have a built-in incentive to selectively choose to sell to minors because they are too young to be undercover law enforcement officers. Only an incredible moron who wished to be put out of business and go to jail would knowingly sell an age-restricted substance to a minor, were it legal to sell to adults. In fact, legalization of marijuana would increase societal controls over who could get it just as it would all other drugs.

This in turn would result in increased crime and thus would add to existing burdens for the criminal justice system.

No, it wouldn't. It would result in a massive decrease in crime to remove the criminality of drug sales and use.

[joe]

I support the legalization of drugs, but I bet this would relieve many of our politicians. It's one less crime they would commit.

[Vistor233]

Originally Posted by dcannady

If marijuana was legal, all of the eradication and suppression efforts would cease in that area and the revenue generated by taxes on the sale of it would be enormous. There would be fewer people arrested and incarcerated and less expenditure by law enforcement agencies required. That's just one drug.

Some countries are fairly tolerant of marijuana, but much less so of other substances. I'm not so sure why you're headed in the direction of a across-the-board legalization of substances without recognizing that substances can vary greatly in terms of their unique potential for addiction, abuse, health impact, and social costs.

So, you're just saying it would be too much trouble to do the right thing.

That comment might be more interesting if you'd make a more convincing case for legalizing certain substances would be "the right thing" to do.

It should be treated exactly the same as alcohol. I've already said that. It would help if you actually read what I go to the trouble to type here.

But I did read what you had typed there and was actually very surprised by it. I'm even more surprised that you didn't anticipate where I was going with my question. The purpose of my question was to suggest the need for a more comprehensive policy formulation. In particular, it's puzzling that you don't recognize the medical implications of the sale of a controlled substance like Dexedrine - a substance that interacts with commonly prescribed medications.

It's also puzzling that you fail to recognize that the health effects of Dexedrine are potentiated by existing medical conditions. Don't you think it would be kind of dangerous to sell anyone Dexedrine without a thorough medical assessment that gets at common conditions such as high blood pressure of hardening of the arteries or without evaluating prior substance abuse??? Would you want the clerk at your local liquor store or your friendly bartender to be doing these assessments ? That's what you're saying when you assert - fairly blanketly - that the licensure for selling this and other substances "should be treated exactly the same as alcohol." Isn't it?

You and I think differently on this. I'd say the legal sale of Dexedrine by nonmedical personnel would very probably involve an elaborate licensing process that reflects an appreciation for the medical dimension. At the very least, the retail sale of Dexedrine by nonmedical personnel should be supervised by medical staff. Contrary to what you have so flippantly suggested, I don't see Dexedrine as just a new addition to the product offerings of the corner liquor store or local bar. I'd expect similar medical issues for the legalization of cocaine. For example. how would you rationalize the increased medical costs stemming from the hightened coronary risk associated with cocaine use based on the values you're espousing as far as collecting tax revenues on the legal sale of cocaine?

No, it wouldn't. It would result in a massive decrease in crime to remove the criminality of drug sales and use.

That's a strong conclusion that completely ignores everything I said about the increased potential for substance abuse resulting from increased availability of substances. When the sale of alcohol was decriminalized, did that result in decreased crime associated with alcohol? Why would it be any different for the substances you'd like to see legalized.

Many crimes - especially of the violent kind - involve alcohol and might not have happened were it not for readily available alcohol. Maybe you have reason to believe that the increased availability of illegal/controlled substances wouldn't have similar consequences. Even so, wouldn't you at least recognize the increased rate of accidents that could reasonably be expected from the increased availability of substances that currently have limited circulation because they're illegal or medically controlled?

Btw, I noticed you were careful to endorse legalized sale of some substances to adults. But wouldn't the increased availability of illegal/controlled substances result in higher rates of abuse in the population of nonadults?

One could say that the potential for abuse is no reason to make something illegal. On the other hand, it does have a certain obviousness about it that's hard to argue with. Kind of like gun control. Obviously there would be lower rates of firearm fatalities if there were fewer guns in circulation. But that's another story.

[dcannady]

I'm not so sure why you're headed in the direction of a across-the-board legalization of substances without recognizing that substances can vary greatly in terms of their unique potential for addiction, abuse, health impact, and social costs.

Heroin, cocaine and methamphetamines would cease to exist, in their current forms, under legal status. There would no longer be dealers on street corners selling tiny little bags or vials for ridiculous profit. There would no longer be drug gangs having gun battles in the streets or commiting drive-by shootings. There wouldn't be clandestine labs or smugglers.

As far as the variance of the characteristics of different drugs, I assure you that I am well acquainted with them all. They are what they are. The greater variation resides in individuals. There are people who become addicted to aspirin and ruin their esophagus and stomach lining from overuse of it. There are people who smoke pot once or twice a month and others for whom there are not enough hours in a day to smoke all they would like to. Attempting to apply national control to these widely varying personal behaviors cannot possibly succeed. That is apparent from the results of drug prohibition.

Unfortunately, I understand completely why the failed War on Drugs and the social chaos created from it continues, it's a combination of blind stupidity and corrupt self-aggrandizement.

The purpose of my question was to suggest the need for a more comprehensive policy formulation. In particular, it's puzzling that you don't recognize the medical implications of the sale of a controlled substance like Dexedrine - a substance that interacts with commonly prescribed medications.

In a side by side comparison, which is the most dangerous, dexedrine or homemade methamphetamine? Again, you have no idea what I might "recognize".

Don't you think it would be kind of dangerous to sell anyone Dexedrine without a thorough medical assessment that gets at common conditions such as high blood pressure of hardening of the arteries or without evaluating prior substance abuse??? Would you want the clerk at your local liquor store or your friendly bartender to be doing these assessments ?

That is the responsibility of each individual.

Oh wait, you think people are too stupid to make those decisions for themselves, don't you?

There are people who die from heroin overdoses, alcohol poisoning, self-inflicted gunshots, falling off of cliffs, old age, stepping into traffic, being struck by lightening, falling asleep while driving, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, being murdered by a deranged serial killer, drowning, beaten to death for fighting back when they are being raped in prison after having been arrested for having drugs and suicide.

Who are you going to save?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Vistor233

Many crimes - especially of the violent kind - involve alcohol and might not have happened were it not for readily available alcohol. Maybe you have reason to believe that the increased availability of illegal/controlled substances wouldn't have similar consequences. Even so, wouldn't you at least recognize the increased rate of accidents that could reasonably be expected from the increased availability of substances that currently have limited circulation because they're illegal or medically controlled?

It's up to people to learn to control themselves, otherwise, they will never mature. Having the government protect a supposedly adult person from himself is the height of Nanny Statism. If you place the blame for wrongdoing where it belongs, on the person, and not on the drug/car/gun, etc., people just might grow up and learn to control themselves, instead of passing the blame onto something else.

[rachel]

I don't know where you live, Vistor, but I live in a fairly small town in California's Central Valley. (Appx. 16,000 folk, surrounded by many, many cows, almond orchards, farms & ranches)

I could go out this morning, a non-user, and come home before lunch with meth or pot. Heroin or crack might take me 'til dinner. It is not clear to me how you figure that these substances are more well controlled now than they would be if they were sold in stores.

[Vistor233]

Originally Posted by rachel

It is not clear to me how you figure that these substances are more well controlled now than they would be if they were sold in stores.

I never said they were "well controlled" now. I suggested that if you legalize some substances you will in effect make them more available than they are now. This will create new possibilities for abuse.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Vistor233

I never said they were "well controlled" now. I suggested that if you legalize some substances you will in effect make them more available than they are now. This will create new possibilities for abuse.

..and create less possibilities for organized crime to grow around them. The current suppliers stand to lose a lot of money if they became legal.

[Vistor233]

Originally Posted by dcannady

In a side by side comparison, which is the most dangerous, dexedrine or homemade methamphetamine? Again, you have no idea what I might "recognize".

Well, it's now three days into this post, I think it's fair to say that you still won't recognize the medical dimension of the sale of a controlled substance like Dexedrine because you went and zoomed right by it again.

Homemade methamphetamine might very well be more dangerous than Dexedrine. But that doesn't mean Dexedrine isn't dangerous or that it shouldn't be dispensed with medical supervision.