New Senate Bill Reduces Penalties For Crack Cocaine

Photo: Oaktown Crack Comics (GNU)

Photo: Oaktown Crack Comics (GNU)

With all the fuss over health care dominating media coverage of what’s going down in the United States Congress, I missed this story about a Senate bill that would reduce criminal penalties for crack possession. Curious timing actually – the endless recession is causing an upswing in hard drug use where I live and I assume elsewhere, but it’s a step in the right direction I think (you? let us know in the comments section). From Big Think::

The Senate just passed a bill drastically reducing the penalty for possessing crack cocaine. The bill would increase the amount of crack requiring a five-year mandatory minimum sentence from 5 grams to 28 grams. The bill was approved unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee and finally passed this week with a voice vote. According to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) it is the first time since 1970 that Congress has repealed a mandatory minimum sentence.

There are many problems, of course, with treating drug use and drug possession as criminal offenses. As dangerous as drugs like crack are, criminalizing them doesn’t do that much to keep people from using them, just as the prohibition of alcohol didn’t do much to keep people from drinking. Instead, by driving drug use underground, it makes it difficult to treat drug addiction. Making the drug trade illegal alsodrives the price of drugs up. That leads to enormous amounts of drug-related crime, which may do more damage to poor communities than drug use itself, as well as to the creation of the massive drug cartels that are destroying countries like Afghanistan, Colombia, and now even Mexico. And the whole enterprise of drug enforcement costs the government a fortune.

But the Senate is not trying to legalize drug use, by any means. Senators have held off on even reducing the penalty for crack possession for more than a decade for fear of being portrayed as soft on drugs—or even of tacitly approving of their use. But they finally took action this week because the truth is that the penalties for possessing crack are way out of proportion. When crack emerged in the 80s it seemed so destructive to lawmakers they imposed harsh penalties for possessing even small amounts of the drug. But the sentencing guidelines made having crack a much worse crime than having cocaine in its powdered form. So much worse that you’d have to have 100 times of what is essentially the same drug to receive a mandatory sentence of five years. Probably a large part of the stigma associated with crack, of course, comes from the fact that unlike powdered cocaine its users are poor and often black. So the harsh penalty for crack possession fell primarily on poor, black communities.

The penalty for crack use is a major reason why our prisons are filled with people convicted of minor drug crimes. And it is a major reason why black men are imprisoned at around 8 times the rate of white men. Locking up so many black men for drug use—while richer, whites tend to go free—is not only unfair. It has also effectively disenfranchised huge numbers of American blacks…

[continues at Big Think:]

, , ,

  • Tuna Ghost

    Finally! A bill that reduces sentencing for crack possession AND pays for my grandma's abortion just before she's put down by a death panel. Who says the system doesn't work?

  • tonyviner

    Crack is bad. We all know that. There is no reason that the penalties should ever have been more severe than those for cocaine, unless you count getting black people off of the street a priority.

    Now if we could get some laws passed to prosecute the scumbag bankers that are now ruining far more lives than crack ever hoped to, then we will be on the right track.

  • Hadrian999

    i say legalize every drug, across the board and lay a heavy penalty for any crime committed while under the effect of drugs. let people self destruct any way they want as long as the do it in an orderly manner.

  • summer

    If people want to take drugs and use up there body hell to them we must look after the old and young and people who want to help themself

  • Lynda-turner

    If the Fair Sentencing Act were to be made retroactive, it would be a step in a positve direction, the former minimum sentencing guidelines have been proven to have racial overtones, with a “crack” disparity. Is it possible that everyone be treated fairly in this situation? There are murderers walking the streets, but someone with possession of crack cocaine can spend a lifetime in prison, it just seems senseless, oh! and don’t forget the child molesters and child murderers I guess they deserve to get less time in prison!

  • Lynda-turner

    If the Fair Sentencing Act were to be made retroactive, it would be a step in a positve direction, the former minimum sentencing guidelines have been proven to have racial overtones, with a “crack” disparity. Is it possible that everyone be treated fairly in this situation? There are murderers walking the streets, but someone with possession of crack cocaine can spend a lifetime in prison, it just seems senseless, oh! and don’t forget the child molesters and child murderers I guess they deserve to get less time in prison!

  • http://monkeearmada.wordpress.com/ Hanumansboi

    this is actually one of the little known Obama promises that he might actually keep. The disparities for possession of crack and powder cocaine is a large part of the reason why almost as many black men are in prison as were slaves!

  • http://monkeearmada.wordpress.com/ Hanumansboi

    this is actually one of the little known Obama promises that he might actually keep. The disparities for possession of crack and powder cocaine is a large part of the reason why almost as many black men are in prison as were slaves!

21