Obama Administration Calls for End to Crack-Powder Sentencing Disparity
On President Obama's 100th day in office the White House asked Congress to address the issue of disparity in penalties for the use of powder/crack cocaine. This historic request follows a national lobby day held yesterday that was co-sponsored by a dozen advocacy groups.
The day brought together voters from Utah, California, Oklahoma, New Jersey, South Carolina and other states to pressure key members of Congress to eliminate the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences.
The groups held a breakfast briefing with members of congress and victims of the federal disparity on Tuesday morning. Chocolate bars weighing fifty grams, the equivalent weight that would trigger a 10 year mandatory minimum sentence for crack cocaine, were on hand to demonstrate to members of Congress just how small that quantity is compared to the 5000 grams -- five kilos -- of powered cocaine that garners the same penalty.
The 1986 and 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Acts created a disparity in sentencing between two forms of cocaine, crack cocaine and powder, at the federal level even though scientific evidence, including a major study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, has proven that crack and powder cocaine have similar physiological and psychoactive effects on the human body. It takes only five grams of crack cocaine (the equivalent of the contents of two sugar packets) to receive a five-year mandatory minimum sentence, while it takes 500 grams of powder cocaine to receive the same sentence.
As a presidential candidate, then-Senator Obama said the "war on drugs is an utter failure" and that he believes in "shifting the paradigm, shifting the model, so that we focus more on a public health approach." He also called for eliminating the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity, repealing the ban on federal funding for syringe exchange programs to reduce HIV/AIDS, and stopping the U.S. Justice Department from undermining state medical marijuana laws. Within 24 hours of taking office, the White House website made clear that Obama's campaign commitments to eliminate both the crack/powder disparity and the ban on syringe exchange funding were now official administration policy.
The Obama Administration has articulated the need to address this issue by completely eliminating the disparity. Current penalties for crack cocaine are excessively harsh and have little to do with an individual's actual culpability and more to do with the color of their skin. It's not fair and it's not working. While two-thirds of crack cocaine users are white or Latino according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, more than 80 percent of those convicted in federal court for crack cocaine offenses in 2006 were African American.
Last year, the U.S. Sentencing Commission moderately reduced sentences for crack cocaine offenses and the U.S. Supreme Court also ruled that judges have the right to sentence people below the guidelines in Kimbrough v. the United States. However, judicial discretion is still undermined by the statutory mandatory minimum sentences that Congress enacted over 20 years ago, and those mandatory minimums are the source of the crack/powder disparity.
Thus far, two legislative proposals have been re-introduced in the House -- one by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-TX, and one by Rep. Bobby Scott, D-VA. Both would end the disparity between powder and crack cocaine sentences. The Senate Crime and Drugs subcommittee will hold a hearing to discuss crack cocaine sentencing on Wednesday, April 29. The House Crime, Terror and Homeland Security committee also will hold a hearing on this issue on May 21.
The stars are aligning to ensure Americans will no longer be subjected to the same draconian policy set in the late 80s, which flies in the face of scientific and legal research. Congress and the administration have an obligation to fix this and show the country that our criminal justice practices will be fair and sentences proportional to the offense. We can no longer prioritize precious federal resources solely on the incarceration of individuals who are low-level, nonviolent drug users and sellers nor permit any racial group to continue to be unjustly targeted.
Jasmine L. Tyler is the Deputy Director of National Affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. Anthony Papa is the author 15 to Life.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Well, it's about damned time someone took this issue and ran somewhere with it besides into a Republican brick wall!
They need to go a lot farther than that! Nationally, about 7.5 million people are locked up in jail and about 60% of those are there on drug charges at an average cost to taxpayers of about $30,000 each per year to warehouse someone in jail.
According to a Pew Report, one of every 32 adults in America is in the correctional system. The US has more people locked up in jail than any country in the world and of all time. The US has more people in prison than did Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union in the 1950's and we call them the "Evil Empire".
The War on Drugs program as been a huge failure and has only benefited drug dealers and the Prison-Industrial complex. The biggest seller by far is marijuana which everybody knows it is pretty harmless. Other drugs, like meth and crack are very harmful to the user, but most people know that and are not stupid enough to get involved. Wasting huge amounts of money on a failed drug program is flat absurd. A better solution would be to relax laws on marijuana and increase education on the dangerous drugs. It would be much cheaper and you do have to be honest about it as people are not idiots.
Good its about time. Crack cocaine? both addictive and both illegal. Let's stop giving 30 years to crack dealers and 10 years to powder dealers.
Yet when it comes to cannabis, a substance less addictive than coffee and with known medical benefits it is a laughing matter to President Obama. Drug use needs to be legalized, as the entire war on drugs has been a failure and does not address the problem. While ending the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine is a step in the right direction, it doesn't go far enough.
Those addicted to any drug belong in treatment, not jail.
To continue to waste billions of dollars annually on this quixotic war on drugs during these financially strapped times is unacceptable. To continue to to resist legalizing cannabis and to willingly forgo the tax revenues that could be collected from cannabis is insane. That industrial hemp is still illegal in this country is even more idiotic.
Do you think Heroin should be legal? Easy for anyone to buy and get hook? I honestly think some drugs should be legal and some should not.
A distinction needs to be made between using and manufacturing / selling drugs, such as meth, crack and others, including heroin. The use of all drugs needs to be legalized to remove the criminal punishment aspect. Only then can treatment be instituted, rather than incarceration. As I mentioned above "Those addicted to any drug belong in treatment, not jail." is why I favor legalization of all drug use. If, as in the case of heroin, addiction becomes a problem, that problem needs to be dealt with in a clinical environment. As far as cannabis is concerned, it is not the scourge made out to be and there is more than enough evidence to support this.
We need to learn from examples such as the Netherlands and other progressive countries who have made inroads to the drug problem by treating addicts rather than incarcerating them where they don't get the help[ they need including needle exchange programs and a supply of clean drugs in a clinical and supervised setting.
Another aspect of the drug problem are the underlying causes which drive people to seek escape in substances, often leading to abuse.
In the countries were drugs like heroin and other were decriminalized and people were able to seek treatment without fear of arrest. This issue is too serious to form policy based on feelings. There is enough verifiable research available concluding the prohibition does not work. Prohibition spreads violence, disease, broken families, and ruined lives while doing nothing to decrease addiction. Policy should not be based upon the fears of political ruin and ignorance on the part of an increasingly small part of the electorate.
Good to hear that our President is behind the issue. It wil take time to get to and that's understandable.
Great idea to use chocolate bars
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
