Congress Votes to Reduce Cocaine/Crack Disparity

(AP)  Updated 4:35 p.m. Eastern Time

Congress on Wednesday changed a quarter-century-old law that has subjected tens of thousands of blacks to long prison terms for crack cocaine convictions while giving far more lenient treatment to those, mainly whites, caught with the powder form of the drug.

The House, by voice vote, approved a bill reducing the disparities between mandatory crack and powder cocaine sentences, sending the measure to President Barack Obama for his signature. During his presidential campaign, Obama said that the wide gap in sentencing "cannot be justified and should be eliminated."

The Senate passed the bill in March.

The measure changes a 1986 law, enacted at a time when crack cocaine use was rampant and considered a particularly violent drug, under which a person convicted of crack cocaine possession gets the same mandatory prison term as someone with 100 times the same amount of powder cocaine.

The legislation reduces that ratio to about 18-1.

The bill also eliminates the five-year mandatory minimum for first-time possession of crack, the first time since the Nixon administration that Congress has repealed a mandatory minimum sentence. It would not apply retroactively.

"For Congress to take a step toward saying 'we have made a mistake' and this sentence is too severe ... is really remarkable," said Virginia Sloan, president of the Constitution Project. The group in studies of sentencing practices has referred to crack cocaine mandates as a "'poster child' for the injustices of mandatory sentencing."

Under current law, possession of five grams of crack triggers a mandatory minimum five-year prison sentence. The same mandatory sentence applies to a person convicted of trafficking 500 grams of powder cocaine.

The proposed legislation would apply the five-year term to someone with 28 grams, or an ounce, of crack.

Julie Stewart, president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, said 28 grams is about what the average crack dealer might carry around.

She said politicians and the U.S. Sentencing Commission have for years acknowledged the unfairness of the system, "but no one wanted to look soft on crime." The legislative change, she said, is "much more about being smart on crime."

She cited Sentencing Commission estimates that almost 3,000 people a year subjected to the mandatory sentence would be affected by the change. The average sentence in these cases would be reduced from 106 months to 79 months.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the main sponsor of the bill in the Senate with Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said last year close to 1,500 people were convicted for possession of somewhere between five and 25 grams of crack cocaine, subjecting them to mandatory minimum sentences.

Some 80 percent of those convicted of crack cocaine offenses are black.

In the 2008 campaign, Obama said the sentencing disparity "has disproportionately filled our prisons with young black and Latino drug users." He cited figures that blacks serve almost as much time for drug offenses — 58.7 months — as whites do for violent offenses — 61.7 months.

The Congressional Budget Office said the bill would save the government $42 million over five years because of the reduction in prison populations.

Durbin said he voted for the harsh sentences when he was a House member in 1986. When crack first appeared on the scene, "there was near panic in the halls of Congress" over the new cheap, addictive and destructive drug. "It scared us to death. We overreacted."

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., a chief proponent in the House, also acknowledged that, in responding to the addictiveness of crack and the violence it brought, "Congress also created a wide disparity" between crack and powder cocaine sentences.

"The 100-1 ratio has caused myriad problems, including perpetuating racial disparities, wasting taxpayer money and targeting low-level offenders instead of dangerous criminals," the Drug Policy Alliance said in a statement.

Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, was the only lawmaker to speak against the bill, saying the 1986 law was enacted at a time when the crack cocaine epidemic was bringing a sharp spike in violence to minority communities and it would be a mistake to change it.

"Why do we want to risk another surge of addiction and violence by reducing penalties?" he asked. "Why are we coddling some of the most dangerous drug traffickers in America?"

Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., noted that the bill also requires the sentencing commission to significantly increase penalties for drug violations involving violence. "This way the defendant is sentenced for what he or she actually did, not the form of cocaine involved," Scott said.

[abbe91]

"by nomorelibs July 28, 2010 3:43 PM EDT
While I don't agree that any drug should be punishable any more than another."

That's what the law change is based on.

[scbenny]

Many people don't seem to recognize that a generation of people of color has been lost as a result of unfair sentencing laws. Congress readily admits that they rushed to judgement during the rise of the crack epidemic of the 80's. Now only after scientific proof reveals that crack and cocaine has the same physcotropic effect (meaning one is no more addictive than the other), and the fact that your former president GWB Jr. launched this country into the war on terror costing billions of dollars. Now in the aftermath congress in particularly republicans now can listen to reasoning on sentencing issues in a effort to save money. To the non-blacks who don't sympathize with this legislation you would get in line if your son's and daugther's fell victim to the federal sentencing guidelines that leaves no room for mitigating circumstances. Maybe they should have lowered the triggers for powder cocaine so that your children who might experiment with drugs and let them get a taste of federal prison. It ultimately not about color for me, it's about fairness when you can lose more time out of your life for drugs and murderers do less time.

[biggleggs85]

great, now if they can make it retroactive for those inmates that have been wrongly sentenced!

[nomorelibs]

While I don't agree that any drug should be punishable any more than another. I find it hypocritical that we would change a law based on how many offenders are of a certain race. If 80% of murders were committed by a particular race, would we then change that law? How is this country ever going to get past the race issue when we base any laws on this criteria?

[novamba]

nomorelibs, I think the point of the change is, for instance, if it is proven that white people murder more with knives, and black people with guns, the operable word here should be murder (given the end result) not the means. Dead is dead. cocaine is cocaine.

[tsigili]

All drugs should carry severe and maximum penalties, for the users. Of course, that means nothing, while the US fails to stop the flow of drugs from Mexico, into the US.

[ubiquitousness]

Prohibition didn't work for alcohol in the past. Prohibition made the mafia rich and powerful killers. Prohibition cost the lives of many Federal, State, and Local law officers. Prohibition cost the lives of many innocent bystanders. Prohibition caused the deaths of many people due to poisoning. Prohibition allowed the children to have access to alcohol(a drug) and many kids became alcoholics before the age of 12. Prohibition cost the U.S. and State governments billions of dollars to prosecute, incarcerate, feed, house and clothe all those caught using, selling, or manufacturing alcohol.
When alcohol was LEGALIZED, TAXED, and REGULATED all that changed. Children now have a much harder time accessing alcohol, and cannot do so legally. Now that it's regulated (made safe not poisonous) no one dies of toxic additives. The deaths have also been massively reduced in the police and feds. The use of alcohol per capita is way down from those days, largley due to the tax money being used to educate people about proper use versus abuse. Today some states bugets are largly supplied by alcohol taxation (N.H. to name one). Today we are all safer then when alcohol prohibition was in place. Today we see the same thing going on in the drug world.
We already have a system in place to legally dispense drugs to adults who want to responsibly use, ie. Pharmacy's, and Liquor Stores. The establishment of these retail outlet's ability to dispense to adults only proves that this can be, and is already being done.
History doesn't lie! Sane people learn from their mistakes. We have both history and current events that show that prohibition doesn't work, it only cause more harm to all sides involved.
The definition of insane is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result!
The U.S. has more people incarcerated than any other country in th world. The majority of those people incarcerated are in there for drug charges. We currently release violent criminals from prisons to make room for the non-violent drug user/dealer. This is a crazy way to do business in this country!
We should all want HARM REDUCTION! Let's make things safer for everyone by LEGALIZING,REGULATING,AND TAXING ALL DRUGS!
Doing this would take the money and power away from the gangs, and cartels. There would be no moe profit in it!
10 years ago Sweden legalized even heroin and gives it away for free to addicts. In those 10 years there have been no deaths by heroin overdose or poisoning. They have documented a reduction in all forms of street crimes, burgulary, theft, and violence.
The drug addicts no longer need to steal to supply their habit. Instead, they are given a dose that they inject themselves in a safe medical clinic with staff right there in case they need help. This program has allowed the addicts to reduce their use to a minimum and allows them to focus on getting and keeping jobs instead of focusing on where they will get their next fix.
In the U.S. today heroin is cheaper and easiler to get than ever before, after all these years of failed drug war. What does that tell you? Prohibition doesn't work!
In Chicago a few months ago 30 people died from bad poisoned heroin. Another bunch died because it was stronger than they were used to and they over dosed.
We can say "Good they're dead", but that doesn't address the issues at all, it only leaves the door open for more death.
Drug and alcohol abuse is a health issue not a legal issue!
We must make a stand for HARM REDUCTION by LEGALIZING, REGULATING, AND TAXATING all drugs TO STOP THE KILLING AND DEATH!

[dadirt]

Oh boy, too many blacks in jail while? Yeah keep them on the street so they can continue to kill. No sence in trying to bring the neighborhoods back. keep them on the streets selling dope, so the kids can get hooded and into gangs. Got to keep those folks voting of Dems. If they get too cultured they might vote republican! More political correctness! more insanity!

[novamba]

That's right because white people don't kill. I second someone else who said your use of grammar reveals the number of teeth in your mouth, and the branch that is your family tree...

[biggleggs85]

blacks aren't the only one with gangs, and if you parent your child the right way then you want have to worry about them joining one. that's what wrong with the world today, always looking for someone else to blame! OPEN YOUR EYES!